Filed: Mar. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 19, 2004 In the Charles R. Fulbruge III United States Court of Appeals Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _ No. 03-10625 Summary Calendar _ OLUMUYIWA AYODEJI ADELEKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas m 3:02-CV-319-L _ Before SMITH, DEMOSS and June 3, 2003, the district court granted sum- STEWART, Circuit Judges. mary judgment to t
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 19, 2004 In the Charles R. Fulbruge III United States Court of Appeals Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _ No. 03-10625 Summary Calendar _ OLUMUYIWA AYODEJI ADELEKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas m 3:02-CV-319-L _ Before SMITH, DEMOSS and June 3, 2003, the district court granted sum- STEWART, Circuit Judges. mary judgment to th..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 19, 2004 In the Charles R. Fulbruge III United States Court of Appeals Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _______________ No. 03-10625 Summary Calendar _______________ OLUMUYIWA AYODEJI ADELEKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas m 3:02-CV-319-L _________________________ Before SMITH, DEMOSS and June 3, 2003, the district court granted sum- STEWART, Circuit Judges. mary judgment to the bank. Adeleke appeals pro se. PER CURIAM:* We affirm, essentially for the reasons given Olumuyiwa Adeleke sued his former em- by the district court. This was an ordinary ployer, claiming violations of title VII. In a workplace dispute, and Adeleke was termi- careful, detailed, and comprehensive order nated for well established and documented rea- signed on May 30, 2002, and entered on sons. As the district court demonstrated, there is no showing that any employment statute was violated. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has deter- mined that this opinion should not be published and is AFFIRMED. not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
