UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GROVER MEADOWS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 96-2694
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PRINCE
GEORGE'S COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William G. Connelly, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-972-PJM)

Submitted: May 29, 1997

Decided: June 11, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Erroll D. Brown, Landover, Maryland, for Appellant. Douglas F.
Murray, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.P., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Grover Meadows appeals from the district court's* orders granting
summary judgment in favor of Defendant, dismissing his discrimina-
tion action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994), and denying his Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Meadows alleged discrimination on the basis
of his race, based on his expulsion from Prince George's Community
College (PGCC), and Defendant's pursuit of criminal trespass actions
against him for entering onto PGCC property following his dismissal
and expulsion.

Our review of the record and the magistrate judge's opinion dis-
closes that this appeal is without merit. The magistrate judge properly
found that Meadows failed to demonstrate "purposeful and systematic
discrimination," particularly given his deposition testimony. See
Albert v. Caravano, 851 F.2d 561, 573 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting
Birnbaum v. Trussell, 347 F.2d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 1965)).

On appeal, Meadows claims that the district court failed to address
his claims that he had a right to enter campus as a student for the pur-
pose of filing a discrimination claim, as a non-student to go to his
place of employment, and as a member of the general public to attend
a cultural arts festival. We find that even assuming, arguendo, that
Meadows had a legal right to go onto campus after he was notified
not to, he still failed to demonstrate any fact which would support a
finding of racial discrimination under § 1981. Accordingly, we cannot
say that the district court's finding of non-discrimination was in error.
Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985).

Moreover, because the district court properly dismissed Meadows'
underlying case on the merits, we find that it did not abuse its discre-
tion in denying Meadows' Rule 59(e) motion. See Collision v. Inter-
national Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994). We
therefore affirm the district court's orders. We dispense with oral
_________________________________________________________________
*Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994), the parties consented to hav-
ing a magistrate judge conduct the proceedings, including the entry of a
final judgment.

                     2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
