Sharafeldin v. Maryland, Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1337 IBNOMER M. SHARAFELDIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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