UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GARRY R. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FRANK B. KELSO, II, Admiral,
                                                                   No. 96-2224
Acting Secretary of the Navy; L. H.
BAILY, Deputy, Maintenance
Branch, U. S. Marine Corps;
TRELEASE, Lieutenant Colonel,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.
(CA-95-1738-A)

Submitted: July 15, 1997

Decided: September 16, 1997

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Richard S. Brooks, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Janet Rehnquist, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Garry R. Thompson appeals the district court's order dismissing
Thompson's complaint, which alleged racial discrimination and retali-
ation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1994). Specifically, Thompson alleged
that he was denied a promotion based upon his race and that he suf-
fered reprisals for bringing administrative complaints. The district
court found that Thompson's complaint failed to create a genuine
issue of material fact with respect to the elements of a prima facie
case and granted the Appellees' motion for summary judgment. Find-
ing no error, we affirm.

Thompson, an African-American male, was one of seven individu-
als who applied for the Physical Sciences Technician position located
at the Quantico Marine Base. Thompson was one of two"status"
employees who applied for the position.* The other status employee
was a white male. The remaining five applicants were outside or
"non-status" applicants. Due to a miscommunication, the administra-
tive staff only reviewed the records and credentials of the non-status
applicants for the vacancy. Thompson asserted that his credentials
were not forwarded because of his race.

A prima facie case of racial discrimination is established when a
complainant proves (1) "that he belongs to a racial minority; (2) that
he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was
seeking applications; (3) that despite his qualifications, he was
rejected; and, (4) that, after his rejection, the position remained open
and the employer continued to seek applications from persons of the
complainant's qualifications." McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

, 802 (1973).
_________________________________________________________________
*Those persons already employed with the federal government are
classified as "status" employees.

                    2
The record in this case, considered in the light most favorable to
Thompson, reveals that his application for the vacancy and his sup-
porting credentials were not submitted to the proper decision-making
authorities. Therefore, his application was neither considered nor
rejected on any basis. And because Thompson's application was not
the only one that did not reach the proper authorities, he has failed to
prove that the omission was based on his race. Accordingly, we find
that the district court properly dismissed Thompson's claim of
racially discriminatory failure to promote.

Thompson also alleged retaliation, claiming that after he filed an
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO") complaint, certain persons
initially did not make his personnel file available to the EEO coun-
selor investigating his claims. To establish a prima facie case of retali-
ation, Thompson must show that (1) he engaged in protected activity;
(2) his employer took adverse employment action against him; and (3)
a sufficient causal connection existed between his protected activity
and his employer's adverse employment action. See McNairn v.
Sullivan, 

, 980 (4th Cir. 1991). We find that Thompson
has failed to prove that his employers took any adverse employment
actions against him. In fact, the record establishes that Thompson has
routinely been held in high regard and has since been promoted.

We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment
for the Appellees. 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

                     3