UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GARRY R. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FRANK B. KELSO, II, Admiral,

No. 96-2224

Acting Secretary of the Navy; L. H.

BAILY, Deputy, Maintenance

Branch, U. S. Marine Corps;

TRELEASE, Lieutenant Colonel,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.

(CA-95-1738-A)

Submitted: July 15, 1997

Decided: September 16, 1997

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Richard S. Brooks, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, Janet Rehnquist, Assistant United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Garry R. Thompson appeals the district court's order dismissing

Thompson's complaint, which alleged racial discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1994). Specifically, Thompson alleged

that he was denied a promotion based upon his race and that he suffered reprisals for bringing administrative complaints. The district

court found that Thompson's complaint failed to create a genuine

issue of material fact with respect to the elements of a prima facie

case and granted the Appellees' motion for summary judgment. Finding no error, we affirm.

Thompson, an African-American male, was one of seven individuals who applied for the Physical Sciences Technician position located

at the Quantico Marine Base. Thompson was one of two"status"

employees who applied for the position.* The other status employee

was a white male. The remaining five applicants were outside or

"non-status" applicants. Due to a miscommunication, the administrative staff only reviewed the records and credentials of the non-status

applicants for the vacancy. Thompson asserted that his credentials

were not forwarded because of his race.

A prima facie case of racial discrimination is established when a

complainant proves (1) "that he belongs to a racial minority; (2) that

he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was

seeking applications; (3) that despite his qualifications, he was

rejected; and, (4) that, after his rejection, the position remained open

and the employer continued to seek applications from persons of the

complainant's qualifications." McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973).

_________________________________________________________________

*Those persons already employed with the federal government are

classified as "status" employees.

 2
The record in this case, considered in the light most favorable to

Thompson, reveals that his application for the vacancy and his supporting credentials were not submitted to the proper decision-making

authorities. Therefore, his application was neither considered nor

rejected on any basis. And because Thompson's application was not

the only one that did not reach the proper authorities, he has failed to

prove that the omission was based on his race. Accordingly, we find

that the district court properly dismissed Thompson's claim of

racially discriminatory failure to promote.

Thompson also alleged retaliation, claiming that after he filed an

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO") complaint, certain persons

initially did not make his personnel file available to the EEO counselor investigating his claims. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Thompson must show that (1) he engaged in protected activity;

(2) his employer took adverse employment action against him; and (3)

a sufficient causal connection existed between his protected activity

and his employer's adverse employment action. See McNairn v.

Sullivan, 929 F.2d 974, 980 (4th Cir. 1991). We find that Thompson

has failed to prove that his employers took any adverse employment

actions against him. In fact, the record establishes that Thompson has

routinely been held in high regard and has since been promoted.

We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment

for the Appellees. 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