UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1337
IBNOMER M. SHARAFELDIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MARYLAND, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; SONDERVAN
WILLIAM, Commissioner Maryland Division of
Correction; JOHN MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden;
MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL TRAINING CENTER; LARRY
MCCAULEY, Captain; GARY SMITH, Correctional
Officer II; NANCY WILLIAMS, Director Religious
and Volunteer Services; VIVILAN E. FEREBEE,
E.E.O. Director Department of Public Safety
and Correctional Services; MARK TROUPE, Cap-
tain Maryland Division of Correction; STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-2940-H)
Submitted: October 31, 2001 Decided: November 15, 2001
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fatai A. Suleman, AMOROW & KUM, P.A., Hyattsville, Maryland, for
Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Scott S.
Oakley, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Ibnomer M. Sharafeldin filed an amended complaint under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§
2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). He alleged hostile
work environment harassment and constructive discharge arising from
his employment as a chaplain at the Maryland Correctional Training
Center. Sharafeldin sought leave to file a second amended com-
plaint alleging a failure-to-hire claim. He appeals the district
court’s denial of this motion and the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Appellee.
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and joint appendix and
the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Ac-
cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Sharafeldin v. State of Maryland, No. CA-99-2940-H (D. Md. June 14,
2000; Feb. 13, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3