Court Opinion

ID: 990639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:24:23.678223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:52.558560
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KENDALL L. HOLLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 96-1169

TOGO D. WEST, JR.,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge; Albert V. Bryan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge.
(CA-95-1242-A)

Submitted: October 3, 1996

Decided: October 15, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Kendall L. Holley, Appellant Pro Se. Jeri Kaylene Somers, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Kendall L. Holley appeals from the district court's decision grant-
ing summary judgment to Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of the Army,
in Appellant's retaliation action, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (1994). Find-
ing no error, we affirm.

Appellant claimed Appellee gave her a low performance evaluation
in retaliation for the asthma-related complaint she filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, Appellant
failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, see McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), because she estab-
lished no causal connection between the low performance evaluation
and the EEOC claim. Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 460 (4th Cir. 1994);
Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 1989).
Appellant received several similar evaluations prior to her EEOC
claim and her conclusory allegations of a connection are insufficient
to survive summary judgment.

Further, even if she did establish a prima facie case, Appellant
failed to show that Appellee's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason
for the low performance evaluation was a pretext for retaliation. See
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). Appellee
claimed the low evaluation was due to Appellant's poor performance;
Appellant failed to present any evidence that, but for the alleged retal-
iation, she would have received a better evaluation, as is evidenced
by her prior equally low evaluations. Dwyer v. Smith, 867 F.2d 184,
190-91 (4th Cir. 1989).

Finally, Appellant also alleged Appellee discriminated against her
by placing her on leave restriction, failing to offer her requested train-
ing, and excluding a sergeant from the evaluation process. However,
Appellant failed to raise these issues in administrative proceedings,
thus precluding her from raising them in federal court. See Brown v.
General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 (1976).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision and deny
Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argu-

                     2
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the material before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3