Simmons v. Shalala, Sec, (4th Cir. 1997)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MAE ELIZABETH SIMMONS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; MARY

ROSE LYNCH, Administrative Officer,

Division of Extramural Activities, No. 96-2838 Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental

Health Administration, National

Institutes of Health; HUGH STAMPER,

Director, Division of Extramural

Activities, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and

Mental Health Administration,

National Institutes of Health,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-96-1472)

Submitted: April 17, 1997

Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Mae Elizabeth Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. S. Hollis Fleischer, Assis-

tant United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-

lees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.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

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Mae Elizabeth Simmons appeals from the district court's order granting dismissal of the individual Defendants, and summary judgment in favor of Defendant Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and dismissing Simmons' employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 4, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-16 (West 1994), based on her race.

Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. First, the district court's dismissal of the individual federal Defendants was proper. See Ellis v. United States Postal Serv. , 784 F.2d 835, 838 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Birbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp. , 30 F.3d 507, 510-11 (4th Cir. 1994) (as to ADEA claims). Second, Simmons failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. , U.S., 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S. Apr. 1, 1996) (No. 95-354); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees , 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Simmons failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons the employer proffered to support its decisions to discipline and ultimately terminate her. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 254-56 2 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. , 933 F.2d 231, 234- 35 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court's finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). As for Simmons' claim of retaliation, we agree with the district court's conclusion and reasoning. Simmons v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services , No. CA-96-1472 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 1996).

We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of this action. 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 decisional process.

AFFIRMED

---