UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PARSHOTAM SINGH CHAHIL, Ph.D.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                    No. 96-2818
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, United
States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake and Peter J. Messitte, District Judges.
(CA-94-3201-CCB)

Submitted: September 9, 1997

Decided: October 7, 1997

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Daniel M. Press, Philip Chung, Russell B. Adams III, CHUNG &
PRESS, P.C., McLean, Virginia, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Parshotam Singh Chahil appeals from a district court
order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and
dismissing Chahil's complaint alleging unlawful employment dis-
crimination. Chahil raises six issues on appeal: (1) whether the dis-
trict court applied the appropriate standard of review in granting
summary judgment; (2) whether the district court erred by finding
some of his claims time-barred and others as not raised in his admin-
istrative complaints; (3) whether he presented evidence showing that
he was the victim of adverse employment actions; (4) whether he
presented direct evidence of unlawful employment discrimination;
(5) whether he presented sufficient evidence to show that the Defen-
dant's reasons for its actions were pretextual; and (6) whether the
Defendant provided reasonable accommodation for his disability.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Chahil, who has a Ph.D. in statistics, worked for the Human Nutri-
tion Information Service, an agency of the United States Department
of Agriculture ("USDA"), from 1984 until 1994, when the agency
was disbanded. In 1985, Chahil developed a severe cornea problem,
which required numerous surgeries in both eyes, and glaucoma. These
maladies rendered Chahil legally blind and unable to read without
using a magnifying device.

In 1992, Chahil filed the first of six formal EEO complaints with
the USDA's EEO office alleging that his supervisors were hostile
toward him and blocked his advancement; that the agency would not
remove the supervisors; that his supervisors "killed" his independent
research project; that he was not included in a rotating supervisor pro-
gram; that he was moved out of his private office and into a smoke-
filled secretarial bay; and that he was forced to use printers on another
floor. Chahil asserted that these actions were the result of unlawful

                     2
discrimination based on his disability. The agency investigated
Chahil's claims and issued a right to sue letter.

Chahil filed a timely complaint in district court, alleging that every
one of his supervisors since 1985 discriminated against him based on
his disability, race, national origin, and religion. Chahil also alleged
that the Defendant failed to accommodate his disability and that his
supervisors retaliated against him for filing formal and informal EEO
complaints.* After extensive discovery, the Defendant filed a motion
for summary judgment, which the court granted.

After considering the parties' briefs and joint appendix, we affirm
for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough opinion. See
Chahil v. Secretary of Agric., No. CA-94-3201-CCB (D. Md. Oct. 17,
1996). We reject Chahil's assertion that the district court made an
improper credibility determination in granting summary judgment.
After the Defendant gave a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for
its actions, Chahil bore the burden of showing that the reason was a
pretext for illegal discrimination. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs
v. Burdine, 

, 253 (1981). The district court properly
found that Chahil's personal speculations standing alone were insuffi-
cient to satisfy this burden. See Evans v. Technologies Applications
& Serv. Co., 

, 960-61 (4th Cir. 1996). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Chahil does not appeal the district court's grant of summary judg-
ment on the retaliation claims.

                     3