William Hunter v. Allied Barton Security Svc, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-11166 Affirmed ] Judge: FPB , Judge: EBC , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 05/19/2014 [13-11166]

Case: 13-11166

Document: 00512609702

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/28/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 13-11166
Summary Calendar

FILED
April 28, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

WILLIAM J. HUNTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES;
LESLEY VARNER,
Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:12-CV-1094
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William J. Hunter (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the
district court granting summary judgment and dismissing his discrimination
and retaliation claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), and his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
We AFFIRM for the following reasons:

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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

Case: 13-11166

Document: 00512609702

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/28/2014

No. 13-11166
1. Appellant fails to argue or brief any alleged error in the disposition of
his race-based claims in the district court. Accordingly, any such
claims are waived on appeal. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993);
2. Appellant’s arguments that the court below erred in dismissing his
retaliation claims and that he was terminated for protected activity
fail both because he has not shown a causal connection between his
allegedly protected activity and his termination, and because even
assuming the same, he has failed to raise a genuine issue of material
fact that the asserted reason for his termination was pretextual. See
McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551, 557-58 (5th Cir. 2007). The
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the magistrate judge,
which were approved and adopted by the district court, provide the
essential and more detailed rationale for rejecting Appellant’s claims
on appeal. No additional writing is necessary.
AFFIRMED.

2