Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Yazoo County Welfare, 96-60172 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 96-60172 Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 96-60172 Summary Calendar CLIFTON DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS YAZOO COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Missippi (W88-0055(W)) October 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Clifton Davis contends that the district court failed to address the issue of pretext in his Title VII action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 as amen
More
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       For the Fifth Circuit



                            No. 96-60172
                          Summary Calendar


                           CLIFTON DAVIS,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,


                               VERSUS


                 YAZOO COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,

                                                Defendant-Appellee.




           Appeal from the United States District Court
               For the Southern District of Missippi
                           (W88-0055(W))
                          October 29, 1996


Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

      Clifton Davis contends that the district court failed to

address the issue of pretext in his Title VII action under 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-2 as amended.

      We do not reach the merits of his appeal, as it was not timely



  *
     Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
filed.    The parties do not dispute that the district court filed

its judgment on November 8, 1994, and a supplemental judgment on

January 30, 1996.     The appellant did not file his appeal until

March    4,   1996.   Pursuant   to   Fed.R.App.P.   4(a)(1),   we   lack

jurisdiction to hear this appeal.         Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED as untimely.

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