UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PARSHOTAM SINGH CHAHIL, Ph.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-2818

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, United

States Department of Agriculture,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Catherine C. Blake and Peter J. Messitte, District Judges.

(CA-94-3201-CCB)

Submitted: September 9, 1997

Decided: October 7, 1997

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Daniel M. Press, Philip Chung, Russell B. Adams III, CHUNG &

PRESS, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia,

United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Parshotam Singh Chahil appeals from a district court

order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and

dismissing Chahil's complaint alleging unlawful employment discrimination. Chahil raises six issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court applied the appropriate standard of review in granting

summary judgment; (2) whether the district court erred by finding

some of his claims time-barred and others as not raised in his administrative complaints; (3) whether he presented evidence showing that

he was the victim of adverse employment actions; (4) whether he

presented direct evidence of unlawful employment discrimination;

(5) whether he presented sufficient evidence to show that the Defendant's reasons for its actions were pretextual; and (6) whether the

Defendant provided reasonable accommodation for his disability.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Chahil, who has a Ph.D. in statistics, worked for the Human Nutrition Information Service, an agency of the United States Department

of Agriculture ("USDA"), from 1984 until 1994, when the agency

was disbanded. In 1985, Chahil developed a severe cornea problem,

which required numerous surgeries in both eyes, and glaucoma. These

maladies rendered Chahil legally blind and unable to read without

using a magnifying device.

In 1992, Chahil filed the first of six formal EEO complaints with

the USDA's EEO office alleging that his supervisors were hostile

toward him and blocked his advancement; that the agency would not

remove the supervisors; that his supervisors "killed" his independent

research project; that he was not included in a rotating supervisor program; that he was moved out of his private office and into a smokefilled secretarial bay; and that he was forced to use printers on another

floor. Chahil asserted that these actions were the result of unlawful

 2
discrimination based on his disability. The agency investigated

Chahil's claims and issued a right to sue letter.

Chahil filed a timely complaint in district court, alleging that every

one of his supervisors since 1985 discriminated against him based on

his disability, race, national origin, and religion. Chahil also alleged

that the Defendant failed to accommodate his disability and that his

supervisors retaliated against him for filing formal and informal EEO

complaints.* After extensive discovery, the Defendant filed a motion

for summary judgment, which the court granted.

After considering the parties' briefs and joint appendix, we affirm

for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough opinion. See

Chahil v. Secretary of Agric., No. CA-94-3201-CCB (D. Md. Oct. 17,

1996). We reject Chahil's assertion that the district court made an

improper credibility determination in granting summary judgment.

After the Defendant gave a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for

its actions, Chahil bore the burden of showing that the reason was a

pretext for illegal discrimination. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs

v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). The district court properly

found that Chahil's personal speculations standing alone were insufficient to satisfy this burden. See Evans v. Technologies Applications

& Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 960-61 (4th Cir. 1996). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

*Chahil does not appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment on the retaliation claims.

 3