Walls v. Security Enforcement Bureau ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2017
JEFFREY WALLS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SECURITY ENFORCEMENT BUREAU OF NEW YORK,
INCORPORATED; NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, District
Judge. (CA-02-1141)
Submitted: June 25, 2004 Decided: September 9, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Walls, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph D. McCluskey, LECLAIR
RYAN, Richmond, Virginia; Teresa Burke Wright, JACKSON LEWIS
L.L.P., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Walls filed a discrimination action raising
claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000a, 2000e to 2000e-17 (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(2000), against the Appellees, National Amusements, Inc. (“NAI”),
and Security Enforcement Bureau of New York, Inc. (“SEB”). The
district court denied Walls relief and granted the Appellees
summary judgment. Walls appeals. We review the district court’s
grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E. I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).
Walls asserts the district court erred in concluding he
failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination
against the Appellees. This is meritless. The district court did
not err in concluding Walls failed to establish he was subjected to
racial discrimination, or to a hostile work environment, since
Walls failed to establish the Appellees subjected him to
discriminatory employment practices based on his race, or subjected
Walls to an adverse employment action. See generally Bass v. E. I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003); Causey
v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 801 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Von Gunten v.
Maryland, 243 F.3d 858, 866 n.3 (4th Cir. 2001). To the extent
Walls argues on appeal that the Appellees infringed on his right to
contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, these deficiencies also preclude
- 2 -
relief. See Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649
n.1 (4th Cir. 2002).
Next, Walls asserts the district court erred in
concluding he lacked standing to bring a public accommodations
claim against the Appellees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (2000). This
is meritless. Walls failed to show he was injured by
discriminatory conduct, and consequently, he lacked standing to
bring this claim. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
560-64 (1992).
Finally, Walls asserts the district court erred in
granting summary judgment to the Appellees because there were
numerous factual issues in dispute. This is meritless. None of
these factual matters are material to the deficiencies that
preclude relief in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders
dismissing Walls’ discrimination claims and granting summary
judgment to the Appellees. 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 -