* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 00-30963 LADDIE McVICKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS ALBEMARLE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Louisiana (97-CV-11) March 15, 2001 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * In this employment discrimination lawsuit brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (§ 621 et seq. , Laddie McVicker appeals the district courtÂ’s grant of summary judgment to Albemarle Corporation (“Albemarle”). McVicker was an emplo yee of Albemarle in its Distribution Department, and he had worked for Albemarle and its predecessors in interest since 1969. In March 1996, Albemarle instituted a reduction in force (“RIF”) in connection with the sale of its Olefins and Derivatives business. The Distribution Department was reorganized and McVickerÂ’s position was eli minated. Two new positions developed as a result of the reorganization, but McVicker was not selected for either of these positions because Albe marle believed that he was not the most suitable candidate for those p ositions as he lacked, among other qualifications, a chemica l engineering degree. The two positions were ultimately filled by employees younger than McVicker. Albemarle moved for summary judgment arguing that McVicker had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or, alternatively, that he had failed to establish that AlbemarleÂ’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminat ory reason for not selecting McVicker, the RIF, was a pretext for intentional, age-based discrimination.

The district court concluded that although a reasonable fact finder could find that McVicker established a prima facie case of age discrimination, McVicker failed to offer proof or create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether AlbemarleÂ’s stated reasons for terminating McVickerÂ’s employment were pretextual or that the real reason for his termination was intentional age discrimination.

We review a district courtÂ’s award of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards that would have been applicable in the district court. See Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc. , 132 F.3d 1112, 1119 ( 5th Cir. 1998). Having conducted such a review, having reviewed the record of this case, and having considered the parti esÂ’ respective briefing with the benefit of argument, we conclude that for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court in its order, Albemarle is entitled to summary jud gment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court in favor of Albemarle Corporation is affirmed in all respects. AlbemarleÂ’s request for attorneyÂ’s fees pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is denied.

AFFIRMED .