Case ID: f-appx_12/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gary A. NEWCOMB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael V. HAYDEN, Lieutenant General, Director National Security Agency, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-2554.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 31, 2001.
    Decided June 25, 2001.
    Gary A. Newcomb, pro se. Tawana Elaine Davis, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Gary A. Newcomb appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Newcomb’s former employer on his claim filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Although we conclude that Newcomb established a prima facie case of discrimination, he faded to rebut the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason proffered by the employer for its decision to promote several women and not to promote Newcomb. See Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 959- 60 (4th Cir.1996); Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 458 (4th Cir.1994). Specifically, the employer justified its actions by asserting that the employees who were promoted had better management and interpersonal skills than Newcomb. Newcomb presented no evidence, other than his own assessment of his qualifications, to establish that the employer’s proffered reason for its decision was a pretext for discrimination; his self-assessment is simply insufficient to carry the day. Evans, 80 F.3d at 960- 61. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.