AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2009, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 33), recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) be granted, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that plaintiff advances a disparate treatment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1),*fn1 and that a prima facie case for such a claim requires plaintiff to establish that he (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) is "qualified for the position" in question; (3) "was either not hired or fired from that position"; (4) and that such action occurred "under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination such as might occur when the position is filled by a person not of the protected class," see Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403, 410-11 (3d Cir. 1999), and it further appearing that plaintiff contends that defendant refused to promote him from a third-year residency to a fourth-year residency due to his Iranian national origin, and that defendant's Surgical Educational Committee unanimously decided not to promote plaintiff, (see Doc. 19, Ex. SS at 258), and that this decision was supported by evidence that plaintiff's performance on the ABSITE proficiency examination failed to satisfy faculty expectations, that his performance during mock oral examinations was substandard, and that he lacked the capability to perform the duties required of a fourth-year resident,*fn2 (Doc. 19, Ex. P at 16-17), and the court therefore concluding that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he was qualified for promotion, Mauriello v. Univ. of Med. And Dentistry of N.J., 781 F.2d 46, 51 (3d Cir. 1986) ("In an educational setting, a student bears a heavy burden in persuading the courts to set aside a faculty's judgment of academic performance."), and the court further concluding that plaintiff has not identified similarly situated individuals outside of plaintiff's protected class whom defendant treated differently, and that he has not otherwise proffered facts that constitute either direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus,*fn3 and the court finding that plaintiff has therefore failed to satisfy his prima facie burden, see Storey v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., 390 F.3d 760, 764 (3d Cir. 2004) (observing that plaintiff must produce evidence that "raises an inference of discrimination"),*fn4 it is hereby
3. The pending motions in limine (Docs. 37, 39, 40, 42, 43) are DENIED as moot.