UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT GREGORY KELLAM SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, and COMMERCIAL ENERGIES, INCORPORATED; LEWIS R. DODDS, Plaintiffs, No. 95-1893 v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY; JANELLE MCARTHUR; CHRISTOPHER D. SMEAL; R. P. HARRIS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-93-120-A) Argued: June 7, 1996 Decided: August 16, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CURRIE, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________COUNSEL ARGUED: Daniel Steven Hoffman, MCKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Appellant. Barry Alan Schwartz, BYRNE, KIELY & WHITE, Denver, Colorado, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Christopher T. M acaulay, Scott S. Evans, MCKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Appellant. Thomas J. Byrne, BYRNE,KIELY & WHITE, Denver, Colorado; Thomas J. Cawley, Kimberly A. Newman, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Gregory K. Scott and his business associate, Lewis R. Dodds, travelled by airplane from Denver, Colorado, to Washington, D.C. Uponlanding at Dulles International Airport, a United Airlines flight attendant complained to her co-workers that she had been assaulted by one of the two passengers while on the plane. The United Airlines employees summoned airport police, who arrested both gentlemen-- Scott for obstructing justice or failing to cooperate in the investigation of what occurred on-board the aircraft, and Dodds for assaulting the flight attendant. The charges against each ultimately were dropped.Scott and Dodds filed suit against United Airlines, the flight attendant, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and the two police officers involved. The case was dismissed on all grounds except for a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) alleging that the defendants had engaged in a conspiracy among themselves to violate the civil rights of Scott and Dodds. Commercial Energies, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc. , No. 93-1725, 1994 WL 251849, at *4-5 (4th Cir. June 10, 1994) (per curiam) (unpublished). Subsequently, the
2defendants sought and received summary judgment on the conspiracy claim. Because the cases of Scott and D odds have been deconsolidated, we here consider only Scott's appeal from that grant of summary judgment. To recover under § 1985(3), Scott had to establish the existence ofa conspiracy and show a racial or other class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' actions. See Griffin v. Breckenridge , 403 U.S. 88, 101-03 (1971); Simmons v. Poe , 47 F.3d 1370, 1376-77 (4th Cir. 1995). After careful review of the record, we are satisfied that the district court correctly determined on summaryjudgment that Scott had not presented adequate proof of either conspiracy or racial animus. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). We have stressed repeatedly the need for specific allegations supported by concrete facts to make out a civil conspiracy. See, e.g. , Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, W.Va. , 81 F.3d 416, 422-23 (4th Cir. 1996); Simmons , 47 F.3d at 1377. Scott offers only speculation and conclusory accusations. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED
3