O'Loughlin v. Barnhardt

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1940
WILMOT F. O’LOUGHLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHARDT, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01-
2996-AMD)
Submitted: March 17, 2004 Decided: April 19, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George M. Chuzi, KALIJARVI, CHUZI & NEWMAN, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Jamie
M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wilmot F. O’Loughlin appeals from the district court’s
order denying relief on his discrimination action and granting
summary judgment to Social Security Administration Commissioner Jo
Anne B. Barnhardt. O’Loughlin’s discrimination action was brought
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
to 2000e-17, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 (2000). This Court reviews a grant of summary
judgment de novo. Higgins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863
F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).
O’Loughlin asserts the district court erred in dismissing
his action based on its conclusion he was untimely in initiating
administrative review. This is meritless. O’Loughlin fails to
establish the Appellee waived this defense, and he fails to
establish he timely pursued administrative review. See generally
29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1)-(2); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(b); 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.604(c); Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 455 U.S. 385, 393
(1982); Zografov v. Veteran’s Admin. Med. Ctr., 779 F.2d 967,
968-70 (4th Cir. 1985). He also asserts the Appellee’s stated
nondiscriminatory reason for his nonselection for promotion was
pretextual. We disagree with O’Loughlin’s position that errors
allegedly committed by the Appellee in the selection process
evinced pretext. See generally Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying
relief. 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 -