Patrick Bush v. Ashton Carter , 597 F. App'x 178 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1804
PATRICK W. BUSH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ASHTON B. CARTER, Secretary of Defense,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
LEON E. PANETTA, Secretary of Defense,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01483-AJT-IDD)
Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015
Before KING, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lenore C. Garon, LAW OFFICE OF LENORE C. GARON, PLLC, Falls
Church, Virginia; Donna Williams Rucker, RUCKER & ASSOCIATES,
P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, Michael A. Rizzotti, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Patrick W. Bush appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the Defendant in his racial discrimination
action filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (2012). Bush argues that the district
court erred in concluding that he had not demonstrated that the
Defendant’s non-discriminatory reason for failing to select him
for an open position was a pretext for racial discrimination in
light of procedural irregularities in the selection process and
the denial of a training opportunity. Bush also argues that the
district court erred in determining that he had not established
a prima facie case of failure to provide training because there
was no inference of racial discrimination or, in the
alternative, that Bush had not established pretext. We affirm.
We review a district court’s order granting summary
judgment de novo. D.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Baltimore Bd. of Sch.
Comm’rs, 706 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is
appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Seremeth v. Board of Cnty. Comm’rs Frederick Cnty., 673 F.3d
333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012). In determining whether a genuine
issue of material fact exists, we view the facts, and draw all
reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to
3
the non-moving party. Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th
Cir. 2011).
The relevant inquiry on summary judgment is “whether the
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). An otherwise properly
supported summary judgment motion will not be defeated by the
existence of some factual dispute, however; only disputes over
facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment. Id. at 248. Indeed, to withstand a summary judgment
motion, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence
sufficient to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact for trial. * Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’
briefs in light of the applicable standards and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
*
Bush’s contentions that there were inconsistencies and
irregularities in the application and selection process were
properly discounted by the district court as failing to
demonstrate that they were probative of racial discrimination
and as insufficient as a matter of law to establish pretext.
See Rea v. Martin Marietta Corp., 29 F.3d 1450, 1459-60 (10th
Cir. 1994) (minor procedural inconsistencies are insufficient to
demonstrate pretext and do not undercut the fact that the
selectee was the best qualified for the position).
4
by the district court. Bush v. Hagel, No. 1:12-cv-01483-AJT-IDD
(E.D. Va. Jan. 30, 2014). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5