Quraishi v. Shalala, Sec ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1114
MOHAMMED S. QURAISHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DE-
PARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
96-1703-PJM)
Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999
Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mohammed S. Quraishi, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United
States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mohammed S. Quraishi filed a complaint alleging employment
discrimination in his non-selection for positions at the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an institute of the
National Institutes of Health. The district court conducted a
hearing and granted summary judgment in Appellee’s favor for the
reasons stated from the bench. Quraishi appeals from the court’s
order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s state-
ments from the bench. The court properly found that, even if
Quraishi could make a prima facie showing of discrimination in his
non-selection for the position of Supervisory Health Scientist
Administrator, Appellee showed that the successful applicant was
selected based on legitimate criteria and that Quraishi failed to
show that the reasons given by Appellee were pretextual. See St.
Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507-08 (1993). We also
find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by grant-
ing summary judgment before Quraishi conducted discovery. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Quraishi v. Shalala, No. CA-96-1703-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 21, 1998). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2