UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DIANNE G. PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 99-1551 LENS CRAFTERS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.

Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-3668-1-6-BD) Submitted: April 10, 2000 Decided: September 13, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN,* NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL John D. Watkins, WATKINS & WATKINS, P.C., Augusta, Georgia, for Appellant. Deborah S. Adams, FROST & JACOBS, L.L.P., Cin- cinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ *Judge Murnaghan was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 46(d).

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Dianne G. Parks sued her employer alleging that she was denied promotions and pay raises because of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. S 1981 (1994). The district court, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation, granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on the sole ground that Parks could not proceed under S 1981 because she was an at-will employee.

After the magistrate judge's recommendation, upon which the dis- trict court relied, this court held that an at-will employee could prevail on a S 1981 claim. See Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 165 F.3d 1015, 1018-19 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that at-will employment rela- tionship is sufficiently contractual to serve as a predicate contract for purposes of a S 1981 action). Accordingly, we vacate and remand the district court's opinion because it is inconsistent with this court's opinion in Spriggs. We do not, however, express any opinion regard- ing alternative grounds for either granting or denying the employer's motion for summary judgment.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED