Geary v. Levindale Hebrew ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS E. GEARY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 95-1918
LEVINDALE HEBREW GERIATRIC
CENTER AND HOSPITAL,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-94-1852-WN)
Submitted: April 15, 1996
Decided: April 25, 1996
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Chris E. Geary, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Joseph Gutman, Thomas
Augustus Bowden, BLUM, YUMKAS, MAILMAN, GUTMAN &
DENICK, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Chris E. Geary appeals from the district court's order granting
summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissing her
employment discrimination and sexual harassment action pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 2000e-2 (West 1994). Geary pled discrimination on the basis of her
sex (female).
Our review of the record and the district court's detailed and
cogent opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Geary
failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination.
See Alvarado v. Board of Trustees, 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991);
see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802
(1973). Moreover, she failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscrimina-
tory reason Defendants proffered to support their termination of
Geary. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S.
248, 253, 256 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933
F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991); Accordingly, we cannot say that the
district court's finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous.
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985).
Geary's claim of sexual harassment is likewise without merit. First,
the record reflects that she failed to exhaust available administrative
remedies prior to filing a suit in federal court on this issue. See 42
U.S.C.A. § 2000e-16(c) (West 1994); Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S.
522, 523 (1972); Chisholm v. United States Postal Serv., 665 F.2d
482, 491 (4th Cir. 1981). Second, even taking as true Geary's asser-
tion that she orally presented this claim at the administrative forum,
we find that the district court properly dismissed the claim on the
merits. See Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100, 105 (4th Cir.),
rev'd in part on other grounds, 900 F.2d 27 (4th Cir. 1990) (in banc).
2
We therefore affirm the dismissal of this action on the reasoning
of the district court. Geary v. Levindale Hebrew , No. CA-94-1852-
WN (D. Md. Apr. 21, 1995). We deny Geary's motion to supplement
the record on appeal and 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