UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RASHEED ADEBOWALE TAIWO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-2902

THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-94-3062-JFM)

Submitted: July 23, 1996

Decided: August 1, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael F. Marino,

Eric A. Welter, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, Washington,

D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rasheed Adebowale Taiwo appeals from the district court's order

denying relief on his motion for reconsideration* of the district

court's grant of judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissal of his

employment discrimination action claiming violations of Title VII of

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

2000e-16 (West 1994 & Supp. 1996), and 42 U.S.C.§ 1981 (1988),

arising out of his employment with and termination of employment

with Defendant The Southland Corporation (Southland). Specifically,

Taiwo claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his

race and national origin when Southland failed to promote, and then

ultimately terminated him. He also claimed that Southland retaliated

against him by terminating him for filing an Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

The district court properly held that Taiwo failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons Southland proffered for promoting

the other individual, and for terminating Taiwo. See St. Mary's Honor

Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07 (1993); Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-56 n.10 (1981); Conkwright

v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991).

Moreover, we find that the district court properly found that Taiwo

failed to establish that "but for" his protected activity in filing an

EEOC complaint, he would not have been terminated. See Huang v.

Board of Governors, 902 F.2d 1134, 1140 (4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in

denying Taiwo's Rule 60(b) motion. See United States v. Williams,

674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982).

We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Taiwo's Rule

60(b) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

_________________________________________________________________

*Taiwo's motion for reconsideration is properly construed pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th

Cir. 1978).

 2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3