Taiwo v. Southland Corp ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RASHEED ADEBOWALE TAIWO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 95-2902
THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-94-3062-JFM)
Submitted: July 23, 1996
Decided: August 1, 1996
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael F. Marino,
Eric A. Welter, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Rasheed Adebowale Taiwo appeals from the district court's order
denying relief on his motion for reconsideration* of the district
court's grant of judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissal of his
employment discrimination action claiming violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to
2000e-16 (West 1994 & Supp. 1996), and 42 U.S.C.§ 1981 (1988),
arising out of his employment with and termination of employment
with Defendant The Southland Corporation (Southland). Specifically,
Taiwo claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his
race and national origin when Southland failed to promote, and then
ultimately terminated him. He also claimed that Southland retaliated
against him by terminating him for filing an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint. We have reviewed the
record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.
The district court properly held that Taiwo failed to rebut the legiti-
mate, nondiscriminatory reasons Southland proffered for promoting
the other individual, and for terminating Taiwo. See St. Mary's Honor
Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07 (1993); Texas Dep't of Commu-
nity Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-56 n.10 (1981); Conkwright
v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991).
Moreover, we find that the district court properly found that Taiwo
failed to establish that "but for" his protected activity in filing an
EEOC complaint, he would not have been terminated. See Huang v.
Board of Governors, 902 F.2d 1134, 1140 (4th Cir. 1990). Accord-
ingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in
denying Taiwo's Rule 60(b) motion. See United States v. Williams,
674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982).
We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Taiwo's Rule
60(b) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
_________________________________________________________________
*Taiwo's motion for reconsideration is properly construed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th
Cir. 1978).
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3