Filed: Nov. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30240 Summary Calendar SHAHED MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT; RICHARD PENNINGTON, Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CV-393-F November 7, 2001 Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Shahed Muhammad filed suit ag
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30240 Summary Calendar SHAHED MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT; RICHARD PENNINGTON, Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CV-393-F November 7, 2001 Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Shahed Muhammad filed suit aga..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30240
Summary Calendar
SHAHED MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; NEW ORLEANS POLICE
DEPARTMENT; RICHARD PENNINGTON, Superintendent
of the New Orleans Police Department,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-393-F
November 7, 2001
Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shahed Muhammad filed suit against the City of New Orleans
(City), the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), and NOPD
Superintendent Richard Pennington alleging that he had been
discharged as a NOPD officer in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
and LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2315.
The district court found that the summary judgment evidence
submitted by the defendants was conclusive that Muhammad was not
qualified to perform the essential functions of a NOPD officer.
See McInnis v. Alamo Cmty. Coll. Dist., 207 F.3d 276, 279-80 (5th
Cir. 2000). Muhammad produced no evidence to show he can function
as a NOPD officer, an issue on which he would have the burden of
proof at trial. The district court did not err in granting summary
judgment in favor of the defendants on the ADA claim. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c); Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.
1994) (en banc).
The district court dismissed the Title VII claim under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because Muhammad’s complaint does not make any
allegation that he had been discriminated against based on race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. McDonnell-Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft
Co.,
55 F.3d 1086, 1089 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did
not err in dismissing this claim.
The district court dismissed Muhammad’s state law tort claim
because article 2315 does not provide a cause of action for
employment discrimination. On appeal, Muhammad failed to
adequately brief his challenge of this dismissal. He did not list
this an issue, did not mention it in his summary of argument and
did not specify any standard of review, made no citations to any
2
case law interpreting article 2315, and did not even specify which
of his factual allegations would support a tort action under
article 2315. For the same reasons, Muhammad has failed to brief
his assertion that he presented adequate claims of retaliatory
discharge. Accordingly, we will not consider those issues. See
Oden v. Oktibbeha County, Miss., 246 F.3d 458, 470 n.12 (5th Cir.
2001); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9).
AFFIRMED
3
