Case Name: Timothy BOYKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman Y. MINETA, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-13
Citations: 92 F. App'x 968
Docket Number: No. 03-2358
Parties: Timothy BOYKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman Y. MINETA, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 92
Pages: 968–969

Head Matter:
Timothy BOYKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman Y. MINETA, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 03-2358.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2004.
Decided: April 13, 2004.
Timothy Boykin, Appellant pro se.
Richard Parker, Francis Patrick King, Office of the United States Attorney, Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Boykin appeals the district court's order awarding summary judgment to Defendant in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Boykin v. Mineta, No. CA-03-477-A (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 29, 2003 & entered Sept. 3, 2003). We grant the Government's motion to strike Boykin's attachments to his informal brief, and we deny Boykin's motion to supplement the record. 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
To the extent the district court dismissed Boy-kin's retaliation claim on the basis that it was not exhausted, we note that exhaustion is not required with regard to retaliation claims like the one at issue here. See Nealon v. Stone, 958 F.2d 584, 590 (4th Cir. 1992). However, because we conclude that Boykin fails to support his claim of retaliation, the district court's judgment need not be disturbed.