UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BERTHA KARLINSKY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                       No. 96-1340
THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF
ROCKVILLE; PHILLIP BRYAN; BURT
HALL,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-94-2942-AW)

Submitted: August 22, 1996

Decided: September 12, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Bertha Karlinsky, Appellant Pro Se. Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant
County Attorney, Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bertha Karlinsky appeals from the district court's orders granting
dismissal of the individual Defendants, and summary judgment in
favor of Defendant Rockville, and dismissing her employment dis-
crimination action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 1985 &
Supp. 1996). Our review of the record and the district court's opin-
ions discloses that this appeal is without merit.

First, the district court's dismissal of the individual Defendants was
proper. See Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp. , 

, 510-11
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(U.S. Dec. 12, 1994) (No.
94-719). Second, Karlinsky failed to establish a prima facie case of
employment discrimination. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin
Caterers Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 

(U.S. April 1, 1996)
(No. 95-354); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 

, 802 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees , 

, 121
(4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Karlinsky failed to rebut the legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons Rockville proffered to support its decisions
to discipline and ultimately terminate her. See Texas Dep't of Com-
munity Affairs v. Burdine, 

, 254-56 (1981); Conkwright
v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 

, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court's finding of non-
discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer,

, 574 (1985).

We therefore affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district
court.* Karlinsky v. Mayor and Council of Rockville, No. CA-94-
2942-AW (D. Md. Feb. 7, 1995; Feb. 27, 1996). We dispense with
_________________________________________________________________
*We note that the district court's reliance on O'Connor v. Consoli-
dated Coin Caterers Corp., 

(4th Cir. 1995), is misplaced in
light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in that case, decided after
the district court rendered its opinion in this case. However, as we have
held, Karlinsky failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimina-
tion under the standard approved by the Supreme Court in O'Connor v.
Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 

.

                    2
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