Case Name: Zulfiqar KAHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Fedex Corporation, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-13
Citations: 628 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 15-1748
Parties: Zulfiqar KAHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Fedex Corporation, Defendant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 628
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
Zulfiqar KAHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Fedex Corporation, Defendant.
No. 15-1748.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 13, 2016.
Zulfiqar Kahn, Appellant Pro Se. John Byron Flood, Joleen Okun, Ogletree Dea-kins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zulfiqar Kahn appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to FedEx Office & Print Services, Inc., in his civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). As the district court ruled, Kahn failed to administratively exhaust his retaliation claim by properly raising it with the Equal Employment Op portunity Commission. See Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 F.3d 401, 406-09 (4th Cir.2013). The court correctly held that Kahn did not state a claim sufficient to withstand summary judgment on his claims of discrimination based on national origin and religion. His claims of procedural irregularities in the district court entitle him to no relief. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kahn v. FedEx Corporation, No. 1:14-cv-00561-GBL-IDD (E.D.Va. May 29,2015).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the deci-sional process.
AFFIRMED.