UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RANDY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EAST COAST TRUCK LINES,
Defendant-Appellee,                                                     No. 98-1903

and

NEAL C. MILLER, President, East
Coast Truck Lines,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CA-96-3526-4-22)

Submitted: June 15, 1999

Decided: July 19, 1999

Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and MICHAEL,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John A. Gaines, Sr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Timothy
G. Quinn, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Randy Williams appeals from the judgment of the district court
giving effect to a jury verdict denying relief on his claims of employ-
ment discrimination on account of race, brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2 (1994). Williams argues that the district court erred in dis-
allowing the testimony of a black former East Coast employee regard-
ing that witness's experience of racial discrimination at East Coast.
Williams asserts that the testimony would have been evidence of a
pattern or practice of discrimination. However, such anecdotal testi-
mony would not have been adequate to constitute pattern or practice
evidence. See Lowery v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 158 F.3d 742, 759-
62 (4th Cir. 1998), petition for cert. filed, 67 U.S.L.W. 3409 (U.S.
Dec. 14, 1998) (No. 98-972). Therefore, the district court did not err
in excluding it.

Williams also argues that the district court abused its discretion by
not declaring a fifteen minute recess or breaking for lunch so that
Williams could attempt to locate a missing witness who had not been
subpoenaed. The record reflects that Williams never specifically
requested a recess. We find that the district court did not abuse its dis-
cretion in proceeding as it did. See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-
12 (1983); United States v. Colon, 975 F.2d 128, 130 (4th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We grant
Appellee's motion to waive 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

                     2
