UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1011
WILFREDO ROMERO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary, Department of Defense,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00314-CMH-JFA)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wilfredo Romero, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Elizabeth Cross,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wilfredo Romero, a former auditor with the Office of
the Inspector General, appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on his
discrimination claims, brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701-796l (West 2008 &
Supp. 2010); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp.
2010); and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as
amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2010).
Romero has also made a motion for sanctions to be imposed upon
Defendant’s counsel.
Even assuming Romero can establish a prima facie case
of discrimination under the relevant statutes, it is apparent
that Defendant did not consider Romero for the vacancies about
which he complains—and did not conduct a background
investigation upon him for the vacancies—because since Defendant
revoked Romero’s security clearance, Romero lacked and could not
obtain the security clearance required for the vacant positions.
To the extent that Romero’s action sought to challenge the
merits underlying Defendant’s security clearance revocation
decision, the district court correctly determined that it lacked
the ability to review the merits of that decision. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530 (1988) (“[U]nless
2
Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts
traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority
of the Executive in military and national security affairs.”);
Guillot v. Garrett, 970 F.2d 1320, 1326 (4th Cir. 1992)
(“[I]ndividual security classification determinations are not
subject to . . . judicial review for alleged violations of
section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”).
We have reviewed Romero’s motion for sanctions and
find it to be meritless. Accordingly, we deny Romero’s motion
and affirm the district court’s order. 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
3