UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHERANNE L. JENKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-2071

TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary of the

Army,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.

(CA-95-1537-A)

Submitted: June 10, 1997

Decided: July 9, 1997

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Leodis C. Matthews, MATTHEWS & KELSO, Frankfurt, Germany,

for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, James E.

Macklin, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Major Thomas M. Ray, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Sheranne Jenkins appeals from the district court's adverse determination and dismissal, following a bench trial, of her employment discrimination action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 1985 &

Supp. 1996). Jenkins alleged age discrimination against her former

employer, the United States Army, based on a demotion and her ultimate termination from employment. On appeal, she challenges the

district court's ultimate determination of non-discrimination, as well

as several of the court's evidentiary rulings. Our review of the record

and the district court's findings discloses that this appeal is without

merit.

The district court, after a full presentation of the evidence, found

that Jenkins 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). We

agree with the district court that, even assuming, arguendo, that Jenkins established a prima facie case of age discrimination, she failed

to rebut the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons Defendant proffered to support its decisions to demote and ultimately terminate her.

See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,

254-56 (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 to the district court's evidentiary rulings, such rulings are entitled to substantial deference and will not be reversed by this Court

absent a clear abuse of discretion. Sasaki v. Class, 92 F.3d 232, 241

 2
(4th Cir. 1996). We find that Jenkins' claims of error in this case relative to the district court's striking of the testimony of two of Jenkins's

witnesses on grounds of relevance is without merit. Moreover, we

cannot say that the district court abused its discretion relative to evidence regarding allegedly discriminatory statements made by Ms.

Mackey, Jenkins's former supervisor, given that Jenkins did not claim

discrimination at the hand of Ms. Mackey below.

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