### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  V IOLA M. J OHNSON ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. Q UIN R IVERS A GENCY FOR C OMMUNITY A CTION , I NCORPORATED ; M ICHELLEN. G REENIDGE -M OORE , Head Start Director, Quin Rivers Agency for Community Action, Incorporated; M ARY V. W ARE , Executive Director of Quin Rivers Agency for Community Action, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees,

and No. 01-1784



# 

Q UIN R IVERS E XECUTIVEB OARD OF D IRECTORS ; Q UIN R IVERS A GENCY FOR C OMMUNITY A CTION , I NCORPORATED H EAD S TART P OLICY C OUNCIL ; Q UIN R IVERS H EAD S TART P ROGRAM ; C OMMONWEALTH OFV IRGINIA H EAD S TART P ROGRAMS H EALTH AND H UMAN S ERVICES ; U NITED S TATES O FFICE OFH UMAN D EVELOPMENT S ERVICES , D EPARTMENT OF H EALTH AND H UMAN S ERVICES , H EAD S TART P ROGRAMS , H EAD S TART B RANCH C HIEF , Defendants. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CA-00-330-3)Submitted: March 29, 2002
Decided: April 24, 2002

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL
Bernice Stafford-Turner, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles G. Meyer, III, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Laura Graham Fox, LAURA G. FOX, P.L.L.C., Warrenton, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:
Viola M. Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on her employment discrimination claims raised under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Johnson also seeks review of the district court’s orders denying numerous discovery requests. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, the supplemental joint appendix, and the district court’s orders and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm.
We review the district court’s orders concerning discovery management for abuse of discretion. Wells v. Liddy , 186 F.3d 505, 518 2 J OHNSON v. Q UIN R IVERS A GENCYn.12 (4th Cir. 1999). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Johnson’s numerous discovery requests.
On the merits, the district court properly found that Johnson failed to establish a hostile work environment claim. See Causey v. Balog
,162 F.3d 795, 801 (4th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, Johnson’s discriminatory discharge and retaliation claims fail because she has failed to show the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons Appellees offered for terminating her were a pretext for discrimination. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 137-39 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Quin Rivers Agency for Community Action, Inc.
, No. CA-00-330-3 (E.D. Va. May 9, 2001). We dispense with oralargument 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 J OHNSON v. Q UIN R IVERS A GENCY