UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARGARET JENSVOLD, M.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-1964

DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(CA-90-3123-DKC)

Submitted: January 27, 1998

Decided: March 30, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Margaret Jensvold, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen McDermott, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Margaret Jensvold, M.D., appeals from the district court's final

order dismissing her employment discrimination action pursuant to

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 2000e-2(a) (West 1994). Jensvold alleged discrimination on the

basis of her gender and retaliation. Jensvold also appeals the district

court's pre-trial dismissal of her claim of sexually hostile work environment.

Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses

that this appeal is without merit. As a preliminary matter, we affirm

the district court's dismissal of Jensvold's claim of sexually hostile

work environment on the reasoning of the district court. Jensvold v.

Shalala, No. CA-90-3123-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 29 & May 3, 1996).

We next address Jensvold's appeal of the district court's dismissal

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), of the remainder of her claims. It is the

function of the trial judge under Rule 52(a) to make findings of fact

which will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. See Tidewater

Equip. Co. Inc., 650 F.2d 503, 507 (4th Cir. 1981). Findings of discrimination, discriminatory intent, and causation are findings of fact.

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (discrimination); Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287-90

(1982) (discriminatory intent). "Where there are two permissible

views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot

be clearly erroneous." Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574. Nor will this Court

second-guess the district court's determinations as to the credibility

of witnesses. See Murdaugh Volkswagen, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of

S.C., 801 F.2d 719, 725 (4th Cir. 1986). We reject Jensvold's claims

on appeal that the district court's ultimate finding of nondiscrimination, which was based in large part on credibility determinations, was

clearly erroneous.

 2
We find that while the district court's dismissal of Jensvold's

claims arising from Appellee's post-employment conduct on the basis

of this Court's decision in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 70 F.3d 325 (4th

Cir. 1995) (en banc), was in error,* such error was rendered harmless

by the court's determination of Jensvold's post-employment Title VII

claims on the merits. Such adverse determination was not clearly

erroneous. See Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573.

We similarly reject Jensvold's claims of judicial bias, see In re

Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987), and abuse of discretion as

to the district court's evidentiary rulings. See Persinger v. Norfolk &

W. Ry., 920 F.2d 1185, 1187 (4th Cir. 1990). The disposition of this

appeal renders a determination of Jensvold's claim regarding the constitutionality of Title VII remedies unnecessary. Finally, to the extent

Jensvold raised other claims not specifically addressed here, we find

such claims to be without merit. We therefore affirm the district

court's order dismissing Jensvold's case pursuant to Rule 52(a) on the

reasoning of the district court.

We grant Appellee's motion to strike Jensvold's appendix, which

contains affidavits and other documents which are not part of the

record in the action in the district court. See Federal Rule of Appellant

Procedure 10(a).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

_________________________________________________________________

*We note that the Supreme Court's decision in Robinson, 117 S. Ct.

843 (1997), was rendered while this case was pending on appeal. Hence,

the district court's reliance on this court's decision in Robinson in dismissing Jensvold's post-employment Title VII claims was not misplaced.

 3