UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MAE ELIZABETH SIMMONS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; MARY
ROSE LYNCH, Administrative Officer,
Division of Extramural Activities,
                                                               No. 96-2838
Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental
Health Administration, National
Institutes of Health; HUGH STAMPER,
Director, Division of Extramural
Activities, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and
Mental Health Administration,
National Institutes of Health,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-96-1472)

Submitted: April 17, 1997

Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Mae Elizabeth Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. S. Hollis Fleischer, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-
lees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Mae Elizabeth Simmons appeals from the district court's order
granting dismissal of the individual Defendants, and summary judg-
ment in favor of Defendant Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and dismissing Simmons' employment discrimina-
tion action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-16 (West 1994), based on her
race.

Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses
that this appeal is without merit. First, the district court's dismissal of
the individual federal Defendants was proper. See Ellis v. United
States Postal Serv., 784 F.2d 835, 838 (7th Cir. 1986); see also
Birbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507, 510-11 (4th Cir.
1994) (as to ADEA claims). Second, Simmons failed to establish a
prima facie case of employment discrimination. 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); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees,
928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Simmons failed to rebut
the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons the employer proffered to
support its decisions to discipline and ultimately terminate her. See
Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-56

                     2
(1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. , 933 F.2d 231, 234-
35 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court's
finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City
of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). As for Simmons' claim of
retaliation, we agree with the district court's conclusion and reason-
ing. Simmons v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services,
No. CA-96-1472 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 1996).

We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of this action. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
