Clarence B. Ross, Sr v. BP Explora- tion & Oil Inc., 206 F.3d 404, 407 n.1 4th Cir. 2000 declining to…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1423
CLARENCE B. ROSS, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF ANNAPOLIS; ALFRED A. HOPKINS, Former
Mayor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
99-268-CCB)
Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence B. Ross, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Garvey Goetzke,
COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland;
Elissa Doe Levan, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Columbia, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Clarence B. Ross, Sr., appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer in this
action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We
have reviewed the record, Ross’ informal appellate brief, the
district court’s order, the transcript of the hearing on the motion
for summary judgment, and find no reversible error. Because Ross
failed to challenge on appeal the district court’s reasoning
relating to the denial of a promotion, he has not preserved this
issue for our review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). With regard to his
claims relating to his discharge, we agree with the district court
that Ross failed to show that the reason for his discharge was
pretextual. We also decline to consider the claims Ross raises for
the first time on appeal. See First Va. Banks, Inc. v. BP Explora-
tion & Oil Inc., 206 F.3d 404, 407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining
to consider issues raised for first time on appeal). Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ross v. City of
Annapolis, No. CA-99-268-CCB (D. Md. filed Feb. 22, 2001; entered
Feb. 23, 2001). 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 --