
    Peter J. PRUITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SATURN OF CHAPEL HILL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-4639.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Feb. 15, 2005.
    John L. Wolfe, Akron, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Vincent J. Tersigni, Ashley M. Manfull, Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, Akron, OH, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before RYAN and COOK, Circuit Judges; and BELL, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Peter Pruitt appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Saturn on Pruitt’s race and age discrimination claims. Pruitt also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the order, opinion, and judgment. After hearing oral argument and reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court determines that a panel opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We therefore affirm the district court’s decisions for the reasons stated in that court’s opinions, with one minor exception. The district court concluded that Pruitt failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII, even though Pruitt “(1) was a member of a protected class, (2) was qualified for the position, (3) was discharged, and (4) was replaced by a person outside the protected group.” Wade v. Knoxville Utils. Bd., 259 F.3d 452, 461 (6th Cir.2001). But the district court went on to assume Pruitt had established a prima facie case and correctly concluded that Saturn terminated Pruitt for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual reason. We therefore affirm.  