
    Gregory RHEUBOTTOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee, and Alstom Transportation, Inc.; IFE North America, Defendants.
    No. 12-2423.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 12, 2013.
    Decided: May 20, 2013.
    
      Douglas K. Allston, Jr., Allston & Associates, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Mark F. Sullivan, Deputy General Counsel, Carol B. O’Keeffe, General Counsel, Gerard J. Stief, Senior Associate General Counsel, Nicholas L. Phucas, Assistant General Counsel, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In this personal injury case, Gregory Rheubottom appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee’s supplemental motion for summary judgment. On appeal, he argues that the district court misunderstood the evidence and erred in granting the motion. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.

We review whether a district court erred in granting summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court. Martin v. Lloyd, 700 F.3d 132, 135 (4th Cir.2012). Summary judgment is only appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. However, a non-moving party cannot defeat summary judgment with merely a scintilla of evidence. American Arms Int'l v. Herbert, 563 F.3d 78, 82 (4th Cir.2009). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and agree with the district court’s stated reasons for granting Appellee’s supplemental motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Rheubottom v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 8:09-cv-00485-PJM, 2012 WL 5200037 (D.Md. Oct. 19, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  