Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lisa Colvin v. Board of Suprs of the Univ, 14-30086 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 14-30086 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-30086 Document: 00512936692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-30086 FILED February 13, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce LISA COLVIN, Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM; STEPHEN RICHTERS, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:12-CV-1829 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEM
More
Case: 14-30086 Document: 00512936692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-30086 FILED February 13, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce LISA COLVIN, Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM; STEPHEN RICHTERS, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:12-CV-1829 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lisa Colvin (“Colvin”) appeals from a final judgment entered by the district court, which granted summary judgment to defendants, the University of Louisiana Monroe and Dr. Stephen Richters (“Richters”). Colvin appeals only the determination that Richters cannot be sued in his individual capacity for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act. A careful review of the record in this case, a full consideration of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments on * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-30086 Document: 00512936692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2015 No. 14-30086 appeal, and a thorough analysis of the district court’s ruling, lead us to conclude that the district court’s judgment was not in error. Colvin’s complaint is insufficiently pleaded to overcome the sovereign immunity protection of the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, we uphold the district court’s determination that Richters may not be sued in his individual capacity. The district judgment is AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6. 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