UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Assistant United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

1964, 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

 3