Court Opinion

ID: 998443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:11:24.297739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:16.725811
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALMA YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, Secretary Dan
Glickman,
Defendant-Appellee,

and
                                                               No. 98-1802
JOHN DUNMORE, Deputy Director of
Division Director Economic
Research Service, USDA; SARA
MAZIE, Associate Division Director,
U.S. Department of Agriculture;
RICHARD LONG, Deputy Director to
the Associate Director, Economic
Research Service, USDA,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-96-2818-PJM)

Submitted: March 23, 1999

Decided: April 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Christina Northern, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A.
Battaglia, United States Attorney, Tarra DeShields, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Alma Young appeals the district court's grant of summary judg-
ment for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in this
employment discrimination action. She alleged that the USDA dis-
criminated against her on the basis of her race in failing to promote
her and in failing to provide sufficient training to qualify her for pro-
motion. She claims a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
as amended. In addition, Young alleges First and Fourteenth Amend-
ment violations.

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.
Beard Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Thompson Plastics, Inc., 152 F.3d
313, 315 (4th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate where the
evidence establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).

We conclude that the district court correctly found no issues of
material fact precluding entry of summary judgment for USDA.
Young did not establish a prima facie case supporting her Title VII
claim, either by direct proof or inference. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

                     2
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973). We perceive no merit in her
First and Fourteenth Amendment allegations. Therefore, we affirm
the judgment of the district court. 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

                    3