PER CURIAM. Mary R. Vester appeals a district court’s order granting the
summary judgment motion of the Postmaster General of the United States (“Employer”) in this employment discrimination action. We affirm. This court reviews a grant of
summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the materials presented in the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion, and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Vester v. Postmaster Gen., No. CA-99-355-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED. Because we affirm the district court's order granting
summary judgment to Employer, we need not consider whether Employer is liable for punitive damages.