Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

Joyce Williams appeals the district court order granting Union Memorial Hospital’s (“Union”) motion for summary judgment and denying relief on her employment discrimination action alleging violations under *703 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Williams alleged she was discriminated against because of her race when Union reduced her hours and converted her position into a contract position while it was closing two nursing programs for which she was the Director of Financial Aid. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

This Court reviews 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). This Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix and the district court’s order and find that even if Williams demonstrated a prima facie case, Union proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); see also Bryant v. Bell Atlantic Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002) (finding Court may affirm for any legal basis present in the record). We have reviewed Williams’ allegations of pretext and find they do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to Union’s proffered reasons for its actions. We conclude the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to Williams, would not permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude Union’s actions were discriminatory. Therefore, summary judgment was appropriate. See EEOC v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 243 F.3d 846, 854 (4th Cir. 2001).

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.