Thomas Lamont Saxon v. Donna E. Shalala

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2241
THOMAS LAMONT SAXON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DONNA E. SHALALA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
00-896-PJM)
Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Bell, C. Vaughn Adams, BELL & ADAMS, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Allen
F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Lamont Saxon appeals the district court’s order grant-
ing summary judgment to the Defendant in his employment discrim-
ination action. Regarding Saxon’s claims on appeal that the dis-
trict court erred by denying his claims of discrimination for the
1996 and 1998 positions and that an employee wrongfully interfered
with the administrative processing of his informal discrimination
complaint, we affirm on the reasonsing of the district court. See
Saxon v. Shalala, No. CA-00-896-PJM (D. Md. filed Aug. 23, 2000;
entered Aug. 25, 2000).
Saxon’s remaining claim, that the district court erred by
failing to hold a hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judg-
ment, also fails. Cray Communications Inc. v. Novatel Computer
Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that district
court does not need to hold a hearing on a summary judgment mo-
tion). 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

-- 2 of 2 --