Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

John Doe appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), in this civil action filed under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796Z (2012), amended by Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Pub.L. No. 113-128, §§ 401-488, 128 Stat. 1425, 1631-94 (2014). John Doe alleged in his complaint that the CIA discriminated against him based on a disability, ie., Diabetes, Type 1, on two instances: first, when it revoked its conditional offer of employment, and second, when a CIA employee informed Doe in a telephone conversation that he would not be able to reapply. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant finding that Doe failed to timely exhaust his remedies as to his first claim and, as to Doe’s second claim, he failed to establish that he suffered an adverse employment action. On appeal, the American Diabetes Association has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Doe, acknowledging that this case “primarily concerns a procedural issue of administrative exhaustion, but arguing that the CIA should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of its failure to individually assess people with diabetes because of procedural barriers.”

We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment. D.L. *167 ex rel. K.L. v. Balt. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 706 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is appropriate only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs Frederick Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, this Court “view[s] the facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011).

Upon our review, we conclude that there is no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Doe v. Brennan, 980 F.Supp.2d 730 (E.D.Va. 2013). 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.