UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KENDALL R. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WASHINGTON/BALTIMORE CELLULAR
                                                                 No. 98-2318
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Cellular
One, a/k/a Cellular One,
Incorporated; CELLULAR ONE,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-97-367-PJM)

Submitted: May 28, 1999

Decided: June 23, 1999

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Kendall R. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Dominick M. Valencia, Jr.,
David James Shaffer, ARTER & HADDEN, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kendall R. Smith appeals a district court order granting Cellular
One, Inc. (Employer) summary judgment on Smith's complaint alleg-
ing racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). Specifically, Smith appeals
the district court's determination that he failed to establish a hostile
working environment in light of various comments made by co-
workers and that he failed to make out a prima facie case on his fail-
ure to promote claims.

After reviewing the record and the transcript of the hearing held by
the district court on the relevant issues, we agree with the district
court. Smith failed to present sufficient evidence that the alleged
racial slurs made by co-workers were sufficiently pervasive or severe
to create an abusive working environment under Title VII. See Harris
v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Furthermore, Smith's
failure to promote claims fail because he did not present sufficient
evidence that he was the better qualified candidate for the various
positions. See Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80
F.3d 954, 960 (4th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court order. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2
