UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1777
MAHESH C. SIKKA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DONALD H. RUMSFELD; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-02-235-3)
Submitted: May 5, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mahesh C. Sikka, Appellant Pro Se. Robert P. McIntosh, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mahesh C. Sikka appeals the magistrate judge’s grant of
summary judgment for the Government on his retaliation and hostile
work environment discrimination claims.* We affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.
Higgins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th
Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986). We must view the
factual evidence, and all justifiable inferences drawn therefrom,
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
We conclude that viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to Sikka, the Government is entitled to summary judgment
on his hostile work environment and retaliation claims as a matter
of law. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the magistrate
judge. We grant Sikka’s motion to file an oversize informal brief.
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
1
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
- 2 -