UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS H. STUP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                No. 96-2426
MARVIN T. RUNYON, Postmaster
General, United States Postal
Service,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-1803-A)

Submitted: January 9, 1997

Decided: January 22, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Douglas H. Stup, Appellant Pro Se. Marc R. Hillson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Douglas H. Stup appeals from the district court's adverse grant of
summary judgment and dismissal of his employment discrimination
and retaliation action. Stup's action was based on the Defendant's
alleged improper charge against Stup of leave without pay for a
twenty-four hour period. The Defendant's action was taken following
Stup's undocumented absence in excess of six working days, in viola-
tion of applicable provisions of the United States Postal Service
Employee and Labor Relations Manual, which provisions were
known to Stup, and institutional practices.

Our review of the record and the district court's reasoning discloses
that this appeal is without merit. Stup failed to establish a prima facie
case of discriminatory retaliation. See Huang v. Board of Governors,

, 1140 (4th Cir. 1990); Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc.,

, 457 (4th Cir. 1989). Moreover, even assuming that
Stup had established a prima facie case of retaliation, we agree with
the district court that he failed to prove that the legitimate, nondis-
criminatory reason Defendant proffered to support its determination
that Stup should not be paid for the relevant time period was pretex-
tual. See McNairn v. Sullivan, 

, 980 (4th Cir. 1991); Ross
v. Communications Satellite Corp., 

, 365 (4th Cir. 1985);
see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 

 (1973).
We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2