Hussain v. Mansfield , 367 F. App'x 419 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2298
MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:07-cv-03370-PJM)
Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dawn V. Martin, LAW OFFICES OF DAWN V. MARTIN, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Michael J. Friedman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mohammad Hussain appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(“the VA”) on his employment retaliation claims. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
I.
Hussain filed suit against the VA under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., alleging
that the VA withheld employment information from potential
employers and provided false and/or negative references to
potential employers in six instances. Hussain claims these acts
are in retaliation for his previous employment discrimination
claims against the VA. * The district court granted summary
judgment in favor of the VA.
In granting summary judgment, the district court found that
Hussain had not timely filed two of his claims with an Equal
*
Hussain had previously filed an action for employment
discrimination in the District of Columbia, alleging that the VA
improperly failed to promote him, retaliated against him,
created a hostile work environment, and constructively
discharged him from his position as a medical oncologist based
upon his race, religion, and national origin. The D.C. district
court granted summary judgment on all counts against Hussain and
in favor of the VA. See Hussain v. Principi, 344 F.Supp.2d 86(D.D.C. 2004), aff’d, Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359 (D.C.
Cir. 2006).
2
Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Counselor. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.105(a)(1) (requiring an aggrieved party to bring an
employment complaint to an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the
occurrence complained of). As to Hussain’s other four claims,
the district court found that Hussain had failed to show a
genuine issue of material fact or provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate discriminatory retaliation. Specifically, the
district court found that
there’s just nothing in the record at all with regard
to these particular claims that suggests anything
relative to race, color, national origin or religion,
there’s just nothing here. Throughout, and this is
the overarching decision which goes back to the
District of Columbia’s District Court and Circuit
Court cases, and the Court finds here as well there
are legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for
evaluating the plaintiff the way the defendant did. .
. . There has to be illegal discrimination of some
kind, and there really is none of the described
illegal discrimination.
J.A. 1530 (oral ruling). Hussain timely appealed the district
court’s decision.
II.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de
novo, viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to Hussain. See Williams
v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 428 (4th Cir. 2004). Having
conducted such a review, we find that the district court did not
3
err. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of
the district court. 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
4