UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JANET S. GUTHRIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                     No. 00-1275
BLUE RIDGE SAVINGS BANK,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Max O. Cogburn, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-97-353-1-C)

Submitted: May 11, 2000

Decided: May 22, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Janet S. Guthrie, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Bobo Long, Jr., William
Andrew Parker, LONG, PARKER & WARREN, P.A., Asheville,
North Carolina; Kimberly Anderson Lyda, HARTSELL, HARTSELL
& WHITE, Concord, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Janet S. Guthrie appeals from the magistrate judge's order dismiss-
ing her civil action in which she claimed gender discrimination based
upon a demotion she received while employed with the Appellee. Our
review of the record and the magistrate judge's opinion discloses that
this appeal is without merit. Our review of the evidence supports the
magistrate judge's conclusion that Guthrie failed to establish a prima
facie case of employment discrimination because she could not estab-
lish satisfactory job performance at the time of her demotion.*See
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Alva-
rado v. Board of Trustees, 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). See also
O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 312-
13 (1996). Accordingly, we cannot say that the magistrate judge's
finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. See Anderson v.
City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). We further find no abuse
of discretion in refusing to allow Guthrie leave to amend her com-
plaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962).

We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See
Guthrie v. Blue Ridge Sav. Bank, Inc., No. CA-97-353-1-C
(W.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2000). Guthrie raises additional issues in her infor-
mal brief. However, because these claims were not previously raised
in the district court, we decline to consider such claims on appeal. 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
_________________________________________________________________
*In light of this finding, we will not address the claim which relates
to the disparate treatment elements of Guthrie's prima facie case.

                    2
