UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN J. ABOOD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-1689

J. BRIAN ATWOOD, Administrator,

United States Agency for

International Development,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-95-1663-A)

Submitted: November 7, 1996

Decided: November 21, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John J. Abood, Appellant Pro Se. Jeri Kaylene Somers, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John J. Abood appeals from the district court's order dismissing his

employment discrimination action brought pursuant to Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.§ 2000e (West

1994), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). Abood alleged discrimination on

the basis of his gender, race and national origin.

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

that this appeal is without merit. Even assuming Abood established

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. April 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), we find that he failed to

disprove the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons Defendant proffered to support its selection of an individual other than Abood for

promotion. See Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d

231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991); Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v.

Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 256 (1981). 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).

We further find that the district court properly determined that

Abood's claim of disparate impact is likewise subject to dismissal

based on Abood's failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies, and on the merits. See Amirmokri v. Baltimore Gas & Elec.

Co., 60 F.3d 1126, 1130 (4th Cir. 1995); Jiminez v. Mary Washington

College, 57 F.3d 369, 377 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 64

U.S.L.W. 3311 (U.S. Oct. 30, 1995) (No. 95-396). Finally, we agree

with the district court that Abood's claim of interference with

employment contract fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. We therefore affirm the district court's order granting Defen-

 2
dant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and dismissing

Abood's 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