Nguyen v. Runyon

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1664
QUANG T. NGUYEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, United
States Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-97-1054-A)
Submitted: November 17, 1998 Decided: November 30, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Quang T. Nguyen, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Quang Nguyen appeals from a district court order granting his
employer summary judgment in an action filed under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994).
Nguyen contends that the United States Postal Service (“employer”)
failed to grant him a promotion to an Electronic Technician posi-
tion at its Dulles facility because of his race (Asian). Employer
contends that Nguyen was not hired, among other reasons, because
his score on the relevant entrance exam for the position was far
below the scores of the successful applicants.
Even assuming that Nguyen could establish a prima facie case
of discrimination, he could not prevail in this case without estab-
lishing that he was better qualified for the relevant position than
the individuals actually selected. See Evans v. Technologies Appli-
cations & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 960 (4th Cir. 1996). Because it
is undisputed that Nguyen was not as well qualified as the success-
ful applicants, we find that the district court properly granted
employer’s motion for summary judgment. The district court’s order
is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2