UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KARL G. BYRD, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 99-2653

THE BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY;

BALTIMORE GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS

UNION #31,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-99-508-JFM)

Submitted: September 21, 2000

Decided: September 29, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellant. Howard K.

Kurman, OFFIT, KURMAN & ALMS, P.A., Owings Mills, Maryland; Charles Lamasa, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Karl G. Byrd, Sr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his

civil rights action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation

in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994). See also 42 U.S.C. § 1981

(1994). On appeal, Byrd suggests that the district court erred in finding that Byrd failed to allege a continuing violation of his civil rights

through the Defendants' actions. Byrd also contends that the district

court should not have struck his second amended complaint and

should have allowed him to file a third amended complaint. Finding

no reversible error, we affirm the district court's order.

This court reviews the district court's order granting judgment in

the Defendants' favor in employment discrimination cases de novo.

See Henson v. Liggett Group, Inc., 61 F.3d 270, 274 (4th Cir. 1995).

Here, the district court correctly found that Byrd had failed to advance

more than "conclusory allegations of discrimination and harassment

[which] do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35 (4th Cir. 1990). Byrd simply failed to

allege that any adverse job action taken against him was motivated by

racial animosity. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.

792, 802 (1973). Neither did Byrd state a claim of a racially hostile

work environment. See Hartsell v. Duplex Products, Inc., 123 F.3d

766, 772 (4th Cir. 1997). Byrd's claim of retaliatory discharge is similarly flawed in that Byrd failed to allege a causal connection between

his protected activity and any adverse employment action. See Beall

v. Abbott Lab., 130 F.3d 614, 618 (4th Cir. 1997). Finally, we note

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to allow

Byrd to amend his complaint a second and a third time. See Burns v.

AAF-McQuay, Inc., 166 F.3d 292, 294 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting district

court may deny a motion to amend where amendment would be

futile).

 2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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

 3

0