UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RONALD M. LEWIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                 No. 96-1845
MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster
General - United States Postal
Service,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.
(CA-95-1287-A)

Submitted: December 12, 1996

Decided: December 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ronald M. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. James Ennis Macklin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Ronald M. Lewis appeals from the district court's order dismissing
his employment discrimination and retaliation action pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 2000e-16 (West 1994). Lewis alleged discrimination on the basis of
his race (black) and sex (male) arising out of his job termination. At
the close of Lewis' trial evidence, the district court granted Defen-
dant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 motion.

On appeal from judgment after a bench trial, this court will not dis-
turb the district court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564,
573-74 (1985); Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1994). Our
review of the record and the district court's reasoning discloses that
this appeal is without merit.

Lewis failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory dis-
charge. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., ___ U.S.
___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S. Apr. 1, 1996) (No. 95-354); see also
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973);
Lawrence v. Mars, Inc., 955 F.2d 902, 905-06 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
506 U.S. 823 (1992). Moreover, given that Lewis failed to demon-
strate that the individual who decided to terminate him was aware of
the prior Equal Employment Opportunity complaints Lewis had filed,
or that a causal connection existed between the protected activity and
the adverse action, Lewis likewise has failed to make out a prima
facie case of retaliatory discharge. See Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc.,
871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 1989); Ross v. Communications Satellite
Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we cannot say
that the district court's finding of non-discrimination was clearly erro-
neous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. at 574. We there-
fore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument

                     2
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
