UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS OLIVARES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

No. 96-2100

ADMINISTRATION; DANIEL GOLDIN,

Administrator; JOHN M. KLINEBERG,

Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(CA-94-168-PJM)

Submitted: May 15, 1997

Decided: June 2, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joel P. Bennett, LAW OFFICES OF JOEL P. BENNETT, P.C.,

Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States

Attorney, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Dennis Olivares appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment in his civil actions in

which he alleged a variety of claims which arose out of their employment relationship. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Olivares is a NASA engineer who filed numerous complaints and

lawsuits against the agency, his supervisors, and co-workers. In the

present suit, Olivares seeks review of his four unsuccessful employment discrimination complaints and adds several constitutional, statutory, and common law claims. Olivares, who is of Mexican descent,

alleges that Defendants discriminated against him based on his race

and national origin. Specifically, he contends that he was passed over

for promotion to approximately twenty positions, retaliated against

for filing complaints, and suffered numerous other indignities.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is "no genuine issue

of material fact," given the parties' burdens of proof at trial. Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (italics in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining whether the moving party

has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, a court must

assess the factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 364 (4th Cir. 1985). The

appellate standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is de

novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 863 F.2d 1162,

1167 (4th Cir. 1988). In the present case, we find that the district

court properly granted the Defendants' motion.

Even assuming Olivares established a prima facie case of discrimination and that his fourth complaint was timely,* the burden of pro-

_________________________________________________________________

*See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

 2
duction would shift to the Defendants to articulate some legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. Texas Dep't of Community

Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Here, we find that

Defendants provided numerous nondiscriminatory reasons for not

promoting Olivares, including his lack of qualifications, superior

qualifications of other candidates, his inability to work in a team setting, and his disruptive behavior. Since Olivares never provided any

evidence suggesting these reasons were pretextual, we find that summary judgment was appropriate.

The same proof scheme applies to Olivares' claim that Defendants

retaliated against him for filing EEOC claims and his whistleblowing

activities. Ross, 759 F.2d at 365. To establish a prima facie case of

discriminatory retaliation, Olivares needed to show that: (1) he

engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer took adverse employment action against him; and (3) a causal connection existed between

the protected activity and the adverse action. Id. In the present case,

we agree with the district court that Olivares failed to establish the

requisite causal connection.

Finally, we find that the district court properly addressed Olivares'

constitutional, statutory, and common law claims and affirm the grant

of summary judgment on the reasoning of the district court as to those

claims. We therefore affirm the order of the district court. 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

 3