UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALONZO YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS POWERTRAIN,
Defendant-Appellee,
                                                               No. 99-1265
and

UNITED AUTO WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL NO. 2123,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CA-97-1252-A)

Submitted: February 29, 2000

Decided: March 28, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Beverly Diane Crawford, EL-AMIN & CRAWFORD, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. M. Janet Palmer, WILDER & GREGORY,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo Young appeals from the district court's grant of a directed
verdict in favor of General Motors Powertrain (GM) in his action
alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994),
and its denial of a motion for reconsideration of the same, in regards
to GM's denial of his claim for workers' compensation benefits. We
affirm.

Young first contends that the district court erred in denying a
motion for a continuance. We have reviewed the materials submitted
by the parties, including the transcript of trial, and the district court's
hearings and orders, and conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Young's motion. See Morris v. Slappy, 461
U.S. 1 (1982).

Young next asserts that the district court erred in granting GM's
motion for a directed verdict. Following a de novo review of the evi-
dence in the light most favorable to GM, we find no error in the dis-
trict court's decision. We likewise find no error in the district court's
denial of Young's motion for reconsideration. See Gairola v. Virginia
Dep't of Gen. Servs., 753 F.2d 1281, 1285 (4th Cir. 1985) (providing
standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of a
directed verdict and its denial of Young's motion for reconsideration.
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.

AFFIRMED

                     2
