Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Avaine Strong v. Grambling State University, 15-30316 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 15-30316 Visitors: 35
Filed: Aug. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 15-30316 Document: 00513171691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-30316 United States Court of Appeals Summary Calendar Fifth Circuit FILED August 27, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk AVAINE STRONG, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus GRAMBLING STATE UNIVERSITY; FRANK G. POGUE; CONNIE R. WALTON; EVELYN WYNN; DANNY E. HUBBARD; MONICA BRADLEY; RAYMOND ABRAHAM; UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; WAYNE PARKER; RUSSELL MOSELY; PAU
More
Case: 15-30316 Document: 00513171691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-30316 United States Court of Appeals Summary Calendar Fifth Circuit FILED August 27, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk AVAINE STRONG, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus GRAMBLING STATE UNIVERSITY; FRANK G. POGUE; CONNIE R. WALTON; EVELYN WYNN; DANNY E. HUBBARD; MONICA BRADLEY; RAYMOND ABRAHAM; UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; WAYNE PARKER; RUSSELL MOSELY; PAUL AUCOIN; ANDRE COUDRAIN; EDWARD J. CRAWFORD, III; WILLIAM DEARMON; JIMMY R. FAIRCLOGH, JR.; DAVID GUIDRY; E. GERALD HEBERT; LOUIS J. LAMBERT; RENEE LAPEYROLERIE; JOHN O. LETARD; JIMMY LONG, SR.; JIMMIE MARTIN, JR., Also Known as Beau; CARL SHETLER; WINFRED SIBELLE, Defendants–Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:13-CV-808 Case: 15-30316 Document: 00513171691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2015 No. 15-30316 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Avaine Strong, pro se, sued his employer, Grambling State University, and various other defendants, complaining of his treatment as a university employee. The district court observed that “it is difficult to discern the basis on which Strong is claiming discrimination―his race, gender, status as hetero- sexual.” Nonetheless, the court dismissed, concluding that “Strong’s claims are wholly unsupported and meritless.” We agree. The district court admirably supported its conclusions with a detailed, eighteen-page Memorandum Ruling signed on March 25, 2015. Noth- ing in this record suggests a violation of law. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons assigned by the district court. Strong’s motion to strike is DENIED. * 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. 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