Eddie Culbert v. Cleco Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-30241 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: PRO , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 09/03/2013 [13-30241]

Eddie Culbert v. Cleco Corporation
Case: 13-30241

Document: 00512339336

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/13/2013
Doc. 512339336 Att. 1

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

FILED
August 13, 2013

Summary Calendar
No. 13-30241

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

EDDIE CULBERT
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CLECO CORPORATION
Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana (Shreveport)
USDC No. 5:11-cv-01698

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Eddie Culbert, a former employee of DefendantAppellee Cleco Corporation (“Cleco”), appeals the summary judgment dismissal
of his claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 of the United States Code, the Louisiana
Employment Discrimination Law, and the Louisiana Commission on Human

*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-30241

Document: 00512339336

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/13/2013

No. 13-30241
Rights. In previously granting a prior Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Cleco, the district court dismissed Culbert’s Title VII claims, state law claims,
and ADEA claims, leaving now only the district court’s February 18, 2013
judgment that dismissed with prejudice Culbert’s § 1981 claims grounded in
failure to promote, pay discrimination, racial discrimination, retaliation,
hostile work environment, and constructive discharge.1
We have reviewed the respective positions of the parties on appeal as set
forth in their briefs and the record on appeal, including the district court’s
lengthy and comprehensive Memorandum Ruling on which its grant of Cleco’s
second Motion for Summary Judgment is based. Disagreeing with Culbert’s
contentions that the district court erred in granting Cleco’s second Motion for
Summary Judgment and that the conflicting evidence raises genuine issues of
material fact, we conclude in our de novo review that the district court’s grant
of Cleco’s second Motion for Summary Judgment was not reversible error.
Accordingly, the aforesaid Judgment of February 18, 2013 dismissing all
remaining claims of Culbert against Cleco is
AFFIRMED.

1

Neither Culbert nor Cleco has requested oral argument on appeal.

2