Daisy Lacour v. Claiborne County School Dist, et al

Filing

Daisy Lacour v. Claiborne County School Dist, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 10-60125

Document: 00511163891

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/06/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
July 6, 2010 N o . 10-60125 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

D O C T O R DAISY M. LACOUR, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t , v. D O C T O R ANNIE KILCREASE, Superintendent; CLAIBORNE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court for the S o u t h e r n District of Mississippi, Vicksburg 5 :0 8 -C V -0 0 3 1 5

B e fo r e JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* P la in t iff - A p p e lla n t Dr. Daisy M. Lacour, proceeding pro se, appeals the d is t r ic t court's dismissal of her claims of sex-based employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when she was fired as p r in c ip a l of the Port Gibson High School during the term of her one-year c o n t r a c t and her state-law claim of tortious interference with business or

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-60125

Document: 00511163891

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/06/2010

No. 10-60125 c o n t r a c tu a l relations. Dr. Lacour also appeals the district court's denial of her m o t io n and supplemental motion to amend her complaint to add a claim for b r e a c h of contract. W e have now reviewed the entire record on appeal and have carefully c o n s id e r e d the facts and law as presented therein as well as in the briefs of the p a r tie s and our independent research. As a result, we are convinced that the d is t r ic t court's Opinion and Order signed December 28, 2009 granting the D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e llee s' combined motion for summary judgment was providently g r a n t e d and that the court's Opinion and Order signed January 28, 2010 d e n y i n g Plaintiff-Appellant's motion and supplemental motion to amend her c o m p la in t were proper as well. Accordingly, for the reasons patiently set forth in detail by the district court in its said opinions and orders, the judgments of t h e district court are, in all respects, AFFIRMED.

2