UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ___________________

No. 02-31021 Summary Calendar

MARSHALL RAY HURST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS CORPORATION, doing business as Williams Gas Pipeline-Transco,

Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (00-CV-725-D) _________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marshall Ray Hurst appeals the summary judgment awarded

Transcontinental against Hurst's race discrimination claims.

Pertinent to this appeal, the district court held, inter alia, that

Hurst had failed to establish a prima facie employment

discrimination claim because: (1) he was not qualified for the

position of maintenance specialist; (2) he made only conclusory

allegations concerning Transcontinental’s systematic failure to

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. train black employees; and (3) two alleged racial slurs by a

Transcontinental employee did not suffice to create a hostile work

environment. The district court also held Hurst had failed to

establish a retaliation claim because: (1) he suffered no adverse

employment action; and (2) assuming arguendo such an action

occurred, he failed to establish a causal connection between it and

his protected activity.

No authority need be cited for the rule that a summary

judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the same analysis as did the

district court, including all inferences being in favor of the non-

movant. Such judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of

material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter

of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).

Essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s

opinion, summary judgment was proper.

AFFIRMED