UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1582
STEVEN JENKINS; MICHAEL JOHNSON; THERESA JONES; JARRETT
STAFFORD; RODNEY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BALTIMORE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT; MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF
BALTIMORE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Susan K. Gauvey, Magistrate Judge.
(1:10-cv-00125-SKG)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 25, 2013
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Neal M. Janey, Sr., LAW OFFICE OF NEAL M. JANEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellants. George A. Nilson, City Solicitor,
William R. Phelan, Jr., Chief Solicitor, Sabrina Willis,
Assistant Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Five members of the Baltimore City Fire Department
(“BCFD”), Steven Jenkins, Michael Johnson, Theresa Jones,
Jarrett Stafford, and Rodney Williams, appeal the district
court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant,
the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City (“the City”), in
their employment discrimination action. * Although the district
court disposed of several of Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims,
on appeal, Plaintiffs challenge only the entry of summary
judgment on their disparate promotion claim. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Robinson v.
Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is
appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment will be granted unless
“a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party” on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “Conclusory or speculative
*
Plaintiffs do not appeal the district court’s entry of
summary judgment in favor of Defendant BCFD on the ground that
it is not an entity that may be sued.
2
allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere scintilla of
evidence in support of [the nonmoving party’s] case.”
Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir.
2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and the
joint appendices and find no legal or factual basis to reverse
the district court’s conclusion that, while Plaintiffs
established a prima facie case of disparate promotion, see
Page v. Bolger, 645 F.2d 227, 229-30 (4th Cir. 1981), they did
not prove that the City’s proffered reason for the adverse
employment action was pretextual. See Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 146-48 (2000).
Accordingly, we affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of
the City on Plaintiffs’ disparate promotion claim for the
reasons stated by the district court. Jenkins v. Balt. City
Fire Dep’t, No. 1:10-cv-00125-SKG (D. Md. filed Mar. 30, 2012 &
entered Apr. 2, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3