UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BERTHA KARLINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 96-1340 THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF ROCKVILLE; PHILLIP BRYAN; BURT HALL, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2942-AW) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 12, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Bertha Karlinsky, Appellant Pro Se. Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Bertha Karlinsky appeals from the district court's orders granting dismissal of the individual Defendants, and summary judgment in favor of Defendant Rockville, and dismissing her employment dis- crimination action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 1985 & Supp. 1996). Our review of the record and the district court's opin- ions discloses that this appeal is without merit.

First, the district court's dismissal of the individual Defendants was proper. See Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp. , 30 F.3d 507, 510-11 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 63 U.S.L.W. 3457 (U.S. Dec. 12, 1994) (No. 94-719). Second, Karlinsky failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S. April 1, 1996) (No. 95-354); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees , 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Karlinsky failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons Rockville proffered to support its decisions to discipline and ultimately terminate her. See Texas Dep't of Com- munity Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-56 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court's finding of non- discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985).

We therefore affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.* Karlinsky v. Mayor and Council of Rockville, No. CA-94- 2942-AW (D. Md. Feb. 7, 1995; Feb. 27, 1996). We dispense with _________________________________________________________________ *We note that the district court's reliance on O'Connor v. Consoli- dated Coin Caterers Corp., 56 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 1995), is misplaced in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in that case, decided after the district court rendered its opinion in this case. However, as we have held, Karlinsky failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimina- tion under the standard approved by the Supreme Court in O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 64 U.S.L.W. 4243. 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