Masood v. Shalala, Sec ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
KHALID MASOOD, Ph.D,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 98-1444
DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-97-2575-PJM)
Submitted: January 29, 1999
Decided: February 16, 1999
Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Khalid Masood, Appellant Pro Se. Perry F. Sekus, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Khalid Masood appeals the district court's order granting summary
judgment to his former federal government employer in this discrimi-
nation action. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-16 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court's order, see Masood v. Shalala, No. CA-97-2575-
PJM (D. Md. Feb. 24, 1998), incorporating the reasons for its decision
as stated in open court on February 18, 1998.
Because Masood failed to raise the issue of whether his employer's
alleged discriminatory conduct was a "continuing violation," see
Beall v. Abbott Labs., 130 F.3d 614, 620 (4th Cir. 1997), in the dis-
trict court, we decline to address that issue for first time on appeal.*
See Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222, 1227 (4th Cir.
1998) (declining to review issues not raised in the district court). See
also Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (listing
limited exceptions not raised in this appeal). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Three of Masood's claims were dismissed because he failed to timely
notify an EEO counselor. See Jakubiak v. Perry , 101 F.3d 23, 26-27 (4th
Cir. 1996) (federal employee must notify an EEO counselor within 45
days of the allegedly discriminatory act or personnel decision).
2