PER CURIAM. Henry L. Howell filed an action alleging that he was discriminated against in his employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Howell appeals from the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to his employer and denying his discovery motions. We have reviewed the record and do not find that the district court improperly granted
summary judgment, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (articulating review standard for appeal of
summary judgment motions), or abused its discretion in denying Howell’s discovery motions. See Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505, 518 n. 12 (4th Cir.1999) (providing general review standard for discovery management); Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 962 (4th Cir.1996) (giving review standard for ruling on motion to strike affidavits). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Howell v. Networking Solutions, Inc., No. CA-02-632-A (E.D.Va. filed Jan. 8, 2003 & entered Jan. 13, 2003) (granting
summary judgment to the employer for the reasons as stated on the bench). 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