Amirmokri v. Department of Energy ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1692
HOMI N. AMIRMOKRI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Secretary,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:08-cv-00994-AW)
Submitted: June 30, 2010 Decided: July 14, 2010
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Morris E. Fischer, LAW OFFICE OF MORRIS FISCHER, Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Homi N. Amirmokri, a male of Iranian origin, appeals
from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment and
dismissal of his action alleging that his employer, the
Department of Energy, discriminated and retaliated against him
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp.
2010), allegedly based upon his race and prior Equal Employment
Opportunity and whistleblowing activity. Specifically,
Amirmokri alleges on appeal that he was discriminated and
retaliated against relative to his forced removal, paid
administrative leave, and notice of reprimand after a verbal
altercation with a co-worker. Our review of the record and the
district court’s opinion discloses that this appeal is without
merit. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s order
granting summary judgment and views the facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Rowzie v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
556 F.3d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is
appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and
the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Summary judgment will be granted
unless “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party” on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty
2
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). We conclude that the
district court correctly determined that Amirmokri failed to
establish a prima facie case of retaliation and that he did not
demonstrate that the employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for the disciplinary action was a pretext for national
origin discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973); James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton,
Inc., 368 F.3d 371, 375 (4th Cir. 2004); King v. Rumsfeld, 328
F.3d 145, 150-51 (4th Cir. 2003).
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
3