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
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 amend..
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.