UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2152

ADELINE B. BENJAMIN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. 

(8:07-cv-02990-DKC) 

Submitted: July 10, 2009 Decided: July 24, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Richard J. Link, Jr., KARPEL & LINK, Silver Spring, Maryland, 

for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, 

Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Adeline B. Benjamin appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the United 

States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), on her claim alleging 

retaliation and discrimination under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2006), and the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (2006). 

 Benjamin is employed as a Grants and Agreement 

Specialist with the USDA. Benjamin has filed several Equal 

Employment Opportunity administrative complaints based on age, 

gender, and retaliation, all of which have been decided in favor 

of the USDA. Benjamin’s prior complaint filed in the district 

court was dismissed on summary judgment, and this court affirmed 

the dismissal on appeal. Benjamin v. Veneman, 1 F. App’x 192 

(4th Cir. Mar. 8, 2007). 

 The essential facts underlying this appeal are that 

Benjamin was suspended for fourteen days due to her failure to 

follow supervisory instructions. Benjamin filed a 

discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, which denied her claims. Thereafter, Benjamin filed 

a complaint in the district court, claiming the suspension 

constituted adverse action in retaliation for filing prior 

complaints, in violation of the ADEA and Title VII. The 

district court granted summary judgment in favor of the 

2 
3 

employer, finding Benjamin failed to establish a prima facie 

case and failed to rebut the legitimate non-discriminatory 

reasons for the suspension offered by her employer. 

 After conducting de novo review of the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment, Holland v. Washington Homes, 

Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2007), we find the undisputed 

material facts entitle the employer to judgment as a matter of 

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). Benjamin failed to establish a 

causal connection existed between the protected activity — her 

prior complaints — and the asserted adverse action — her 

suspension. Burlington N. & Sante Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 

57 (2006); see also Ziskie v. Mineta, 547 F.3d 220, 229 (4th 

Cir. 2008). Furthermore, Benjamin utterly failed to show that 

the employer’s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons 

for the suspension were pretextual. See Matvia v. Bald Head 

Island Mgmt., Inc., 259 F.3d 261, 271 (4th Cir. 2001). 

 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Benjamin v. Vilsack, No. 8:07-cv-02990-DKC (D. 

Md. Aug. 22, 2008). 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