Kathy Matthews v. City of Houston Fire Dept., et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-20404 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 11/15/2010; denying motion authorize prep of transcript at government expense filed by Appellant Ms. Kathy Matthews [6419194-2] [09-20404]

Kathy Matthews v. City ofeHouston Fire Dept., et al Cas : 09-20404 Document: 00511272861

Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-20404 S u m m a r y Calendar October 25, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

K A T H Y MATTHEWS, P la in t iff - Appellant v. C I T Y OF HOUSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT; DAVID SWAN; CHIEF JACK W IL L IA M S , D e fe n d a n t s - Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:07-CV-1783

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* P la in t iff Kathy Matthews appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her c la im s for retaliation under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, Tex. Lab. C o d e Ann. § 451.001, et seq., and race, sex, age, and disability discrimination u n d e r Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the Age D is c r im in a t io n in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.; and the Americans w it h Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-20404 Document: 00511272861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2010 No. 09-20404 M a t t h e w s complains that the district court disregarded her evidence and in s t e a d made credibility determinations. She asserts that she provided evidence t o support her claims of discrimination. An initial and dispositive problem is t h a t Matthews fails to provide citations to portions of the record to support her a s s e r t io n s . The summary judgment ruling and assertions Matthews raises on a p p e a l involve record-intensive inquiries. By failing to cite to the record,

M a t t h e w s has waived consideration of her claims and failed to show that the d is t r ic t court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. See Yohey v. C o llin s , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). E v e n if we consider Matthews' claims, the pleadings and evidence do not r a is e a genuine issue of material fact. See Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 4 6 4 (5th Cir. 1996); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986); F e d . R. Civ. P. 56(c). Largely for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's t h o r o u g h Memorandum and Recommendation, which was adopted by the district c o u r t, we conclude that all of Matthews' claims are time-barred, unsupported by a prima facie case, or lack evidence of a necessary element. M a t t h e w s ' appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, is dismissed as fr iv o lo u s . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. In light of the foregoing, her motion for the p r o d u c t io n of transcripts at government expense is denied. A P P E A L DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.

2