Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Halimah Knox v. Louisiana State Dept of Corr, et a, 11-31113 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 11-31113 Visitors: 32
Filed: Aug. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 11-31113 Document: 00512346487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 19, 2013 No. 11-31113 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk HALIMA KNOX, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIXON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; LINDA JENKINS, Master Sergeant - Warehouse; ROMONA JACKSON, Master Sergeant - Warehouse; HENRY WONDER, Sergeant - Unit 1; UNKNOWN BISSETT, Sergea
More
Case: 11-31113 Document: 00512346487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 19, 2013 No. 11-31113 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk HALIMA KNOX, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIXON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; LINDA JENKINS, Master Sergeant - Warehouse; ROMONA JACKSON, Master Sergeant - Warehouse; HENRY WONDER, Sergeant - Unit 1; UNKNOWN BISSETT, Sergeant - Unit 2; LANE THOMAS, Assistant Warden - Unit 2; RICHARD COURTNEY, H.R., Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:11-CV-233 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Hamila Knox appeals the judgment of the district court and seeks damages and reinstatement as an employee of the Louisiana * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-31113 Document: 00512346487 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2013 No. 11-31113 Department of Public Safety. She has not presented to this court any legal error by the district court. She complains of a problem with her uniform and also discusses her medical problems, but she has failed to connect any complaint to a material adverse employment action by the defendant state agency. The Referee who considered her appeal to the Civil Service explained the necessity of her relating specific details of discriminatory action to justify any legal recovery, and the district judge repeated that requirement. Her reply brief attempts to do better, but it, too, is largely based on conclusions and is unconnected to any legal claim. Again, there is no error of the district court. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer