
    Elizabeth OLARINDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL OF SILVER SPRING, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-2079.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 25, 2003.
    Decided March 20, 2003.
    R. Scott Oswald, Adam Augustine Carter, The Employment Law Group, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Richard J. Hafets, Paul A. Mallos, Piper Rudnick L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Olarinde appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring, Inc., on her failure to promote based on race and national origin claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2002). We affirm.

We review 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 material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). We 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. The district court properly concluded Olarinde failed to present evidence that could establish that Holy Cross’ proffered reasons for failing to promote her were a pretext for illegal discrimination. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147-48, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Olarinde v. Holy Cross Hosp. of Silver Spring, Inc., CA-01-3101-PJM (D. Md. filed Aug. 15, 2002; entered Aug. 16, 2002). We grant Holy Cross’ motion to submit this appeal on the briefs and 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.  