UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-2567

TONY EUGENE BARNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. H. Brent McKnight, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-94-128)

Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996

Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Eugene Barnett, Appellant Pro Se. William Pinkney Herbert Cary, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order granting Appellee summary judgment in this employment discrimination action.

We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion* and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Barnett v. Burlington Indus., No. CA-94- (W.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 1994). 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 deci- sional process.

AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West 1993). Subsequent to issuance of the magistrate judge's final order and Barnett's appeal from that order, the district court issued an order dis- missing Barnett's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We, however, have jurisdiction only to review the order of the magis- trate judge, because the parties did not consent to an appeal to the district court judge under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(4) (West 1993), and Barnett properly exercised his right to appeal directly to this court under § 636(c)(3).