Court Opinion

ID: 1000727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:45:00.303782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:05.563241
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KEITH HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RONALD EARP; MINDA FOXWELL;
PAUL FRANZONI, the above in both
their official and individual
capacities; MICHAEL DARRELL                                         No. 99-1244
GAMBRILL; BALTIMORE COUNTY,
MARYLAND,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

TERRY SHERATON, Chief of Police,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(CA-96-2850-AMD)

Argued: December 3, 1999

Decided: January 24, 2000

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
Margaret B. SEYMOUR, United States District Judge for the
District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Gary Howard Simpson, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appel-
lant. Paul McLane Mayhew, Assistant County Attorney, BALTI-
MORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland, for
Appellees. ON BRIEF: Virginia Wood Barnhart, County Attorney,
BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland, for
Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Keith Harris appeals an order of the district court granting sum-
mary judgment in favor of his employer, Baltimore County, Maryland
(Baltimore County) on Harris' claims of racial discrimination and
retaliation.1 See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-2, 2000e-3 (West 1994). Find-
ing no error, we affirm.

I.

The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Harris, are as fol-
lows. Harris is an African-American police officer with the Baltimore
County Police Department (the Department). Beginning in 1992, Har-
ris experienced what he perceived to be several acts of race discrimi-
nation. When his superiors failed to satisfactorily resolve the
problems, Harris and another African-American officer filed an inter-
nal complaint in March 1993, which launched a departmental investi-
gation. Harris continued to experience adverse events that he believed
_________________________________________________________________
1 Although Harris brought several claims in the district court, he pur-
sues only the racially hostile environment and retaliation claims in this
appeal.

                    2
were racially motivated. He filed additional complaints with the
Department, and in March 1994, Harris filed an EEOC complaint.
The departmental investigation was completed in December 1994 and
concluded that the officers' allegations were unfounded. In April
1996, Harris was notified that he was being transferred to another
division within the Department. Shortly thereafter, Harris filed this
action, alleging, inter alia, that he had been subjected to a racially
hostile work environment and that he had been transferred in retalia-
tion for his complaints about race discrimination.

The district court granted summary judgment to Baltimore County.
See Settle v. Baltimore County, 34 F. Supp. 2d 969 (D. Md. 1999).2
With respect to the hostile environment claim, the court reasoned that
Harris failed to proffer sufficient evidence that the incidents he cited
to support the claim were racially motivated or were"sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create
an abusive atmosphere."3 Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 801 (4th
Cir. 1998). With respect to the retaliation claim, the court reasoned
that Harris failed to establish his prima facie case because he had not
been subjected to an adverse employment action. See Beall v. Abbott
Lab., 130 F.3d 614, 619 (4th Cir. 1997).

II.

After reviewing the parties' briefs and the applicable law, and hav-
ing had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district
court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Baltimore
County. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________

2 Harris' case was consolidated by the district court with a similar suit
that had been brought by another police officer employed by Baltimore
County, Calvin Settle.

3 On appeal, Harris references incidents in support of his hostile envi-
ronment claim that he had argued to the district court supported a dispa-
rate treatment claim.

                    3