UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS OLIVARES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
                                                                     No. 96-2100
ADMINISTRATION; DANIEL GOLDIN,
Administrator; JOHN M. KLINEBERG,
Director,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-94-168-PJM)

Submitted: May 15, 1997

Decided: June 2, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joel P. Bennett, LAW OFFICES OF JOEL P. BENNETT, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States
Attorney, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Dennis Olivares appeals the district court's order grant-
ing Defendants' motion for summary judgment in his civil actions in
which he alleged a variety of claims which arose out of their employ-
ment relationship. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Olivares is a NASA engineer who filed numerous complaints and
lawsuits against the agency, his supervisors, and co-workers. In the
present suit, Olivares seeks review of his four unsuccessful employ-
ment discrimination complaints and adds several constitutional, statu-
tory, and common law claims. Olivares, who is of Mexican descent,
alleges that Defendants discriminated against him based on his race
and national origin. Specifically, he contends that he was passed over
for promotion to approximately twenty positions, retaliated against
for filing complaints, and suffered numerous other indignities.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is "no genuine issue
of material fact," given the parties' burdens of proof at trial. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (italics in origi-
nal); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining whether the moving party
has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, a court must
assess the factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ross v. Commu-
nications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 364 (4th Cir. 1985). The
appellate standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is de
novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 863 F.2d 1162,
1167 (4th Cir. 1988). In the present case, we find that the district
court properly granted the Defendants' motion.

Even assuming Olivares established a prima facie case of discrimi-
nation and that his fourth complaint was timely,* the burden of pro-
_________________________________________________________________
*See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

                     2
duction would shift to the Defendants to articulate some legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. Texas Dep't of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Here, we find that
Defendants provided numerous nondiscriminatory reasons for not
promoting Olivares, including his lack of qualifications, superior
qualifications of other candidates, his inability to work in a team set-
ting, and his disruptive behavior. Since Olivares never provided any
evidence suggesting these reasons were pretextual, we find that sum-
mary judgment was appropriate.

The same proof scheme applies to Olivares' claim that Defendants
retaliated against him for filing EEOC claims and his whistleblowing
activities. Ross, 759 F.2d at 365. To establish a prima facie case of
discriminatory retaliation, Olivares needed to show that: (1) he
engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer took adverse employ-
ment action against him; and (3) a causal connection existed between
the protected activity and the adverse action. Id. In the present case,
we agree with the district court that Olivares failed to establish the
requisite causal connection.

Finally, we find that the district court properly addressed Olivares'
constitutional, statutory, and common law claims and affirm the grant
of summary judgment on the reasoning of the district court as to those
claims. We therefore affirm the order of the district court. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the material before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
