Court Opinion

ID: 1000725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:44:58.955636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:49:24.318719
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CALVIN WESTLEY SETTLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT; RONALD EARP; MINDA
FOXWELL; HOWARD HALL; MICHAEL
DARRELL GAMBRILL; MARY K. WARD,                                     No. 99-1245
in both their official and individual
capacities,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

TERRY SHERIDAN, Chief of Police,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(CA-97-651-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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Calvin Westley Settle appeals an order of the district court granting
summary judgment in favor of his employer, Baltimore County Police
Department, and other defendants on Settle's claims of racial discrim-
ination and retaliation.1 See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-2, 2000e-3 (West
1994). Finding no error, we affirm.

I.

The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Settle, are as fol-
lows. Settle is an African-American police officer with the Baltimore
County Police Department (the Department). Beginning in 1992, Set-
tle experienced what he perceived to be several acts of race discrimi-
nation. Settle filed his first EEOC complaint on March 2, 1993.
Additionally, Settle and another African-American officer filed an
internal complaint on March 26, 1993, which launched a departmental
investigation. Continuing to believe that he was being subjected to
_________________________________________________________________

1 Although Settle brought several claims in the district court, he pursues
only the racially hostile environment and retaliation claims in this appeal.

                    2
discriminatory treatment, Settle filed a second EEOC complaint in
September 1994.

The departmental investigation was completed in December 1994
and concluded that the officers' allegations were unfounded. Settle
continued to experience adverse actions that he believed were racially
motivated, including a negative performance evaluation issued by his
supervisor. In April 1996, Settle was notified that he was being trans-
ferred to another division within the Department. Settle thereafter
filed this action, alleging, inter alia, that he had been subjected to a
racially hostile work environment and that he had been transferred in
retaliation for his complaints about race discrimination.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defen-
dants. See Settle v. Baltimore County, 34 F. Supp. 2d 969 (D. Md.
1999). With respect to the hostile environment claim, the court rea-
soned that Settle failed to proffer sufficient evidence that the incidents
he cited to support the claim were racially motivated or were "suffi-
ciently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and
create an abusive atmosphere."2 Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 801
(4th Cir. 1998). With respect to the retaliation claim, the court rea-
soned that Settle 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 the defendants.
Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________

2 On appeal, Settle 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