**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 1500** 

JOHNNY NEWBILL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Liam O’ Grady , District Judge. ( 1:07

- cv - 01019

- LO

- TCB )

Submitted : April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opin ion
. Ardra M. O'Neal, THE O'NEAL FIRM, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. L. Edward Funk, WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Johnny Newbill , an African

- American male, appeals from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of h is action alleging that h is employer, Washington Gas Light Co mpany , discriminated and retaliated against h im in violation of Title VII of the Ci vil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5 (2006) , and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006), a llegedly based upon h is race. Specifically, Newbill alleges on appeal that he was discriminated and retaliated against relative to assignment of work result ing i n reduced payment of overtime , and that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. We conclude that the district court correctly deter mined that Newbill failed to establish a prima facie case of either discrimination , s e e McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802

- 04 (1973); James v. Booz

- Allen & Hamilton,
Inc. , 368 F.3d 371, 375 (4 th Cir. 2004) , or retaliation, see King v. Rums feld , 328 F.3d 145, 150

- 51 (4th Cir. 2003)
. Specifically, Newbill produced no evidence of any adverse employment action. As the district court noted, Newbill received no decrease in pay, job title, level of responsibility , or loss of opportunity for prom otion. In fact, the record3 reflects just the opposite

— his salary and overtime pay increased steadily over the years and is commensurate with his fellow Caucasian coworkers , 1 he continues to perform union

- eligible Grade 8 duties, he holds the highest level union

- eligible job available under his union contract and receives the highest pay available for that job , he has no disciplin ary reports on his record, and he remains an acti ve Washington Gas union

- eligible employee. N ewbill’s own, unsubstantiated claim s of discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment 2

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of Newbill’s action . We are ins ufficient to withstand summary judgment
. See , e.g. , Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co. , 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that “[c]onclusory or speculative allegations do no t suffice” to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact).

1 Specifically, relevant to the overtime issue, Newbill had approximately the same amount of overtime as other Washington Ga s Senior Welders and , since, 2004 his overtime earnings increased yearly, except for 2008, which minimal decrease easily is accounted for by time Newbill was unable to work for health reasons. In fact, review of Newbill’s overtime earnings records reflects that his overtime pay increased from several thousands of dollars per year in 2003 to over five times that amount in 2008.

2 Newbill has provided no evidence of conduct by the employer that demonstrates that his work conditions were sufficiently extreme to establish an acti onable hostile work environment claim. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998).4 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adeq uately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED