Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lucinda Francis v. South Central Actn Cncl, Inc., 16-20533 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 16-20533 Visitors: 35
Filed: May 02, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 16-20533 Document: 00513975719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 16-20533 Fifth Circuit Summary Calendar FILED May 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce LUCINDA FRANCIS, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant v. SOUTH CENTRAL ACTION COUNCIL, INCORPORATED, doing business as Central Care Community Health Center, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CV-127
More
Case: 16-20533 Document: 00513975719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 16-20533 Fifth Circuit Summary Calendar FILED May 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce LUCINDA FRANCIS, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant v. SOUTH CENTRAL ACTION COUNCIL, INCORPORATED, doing business as Central Care Community Health Center, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CV-1277 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Lucinda Francis sued her former employer, Defendant-Appellee South Central Action Council, Incorporated, asserting claims arising from the termination of her employment. She alleged discrimination based on age in violation of the ADEA and on national origin in * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-20533 Document: 00513975719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 No. 16-20533 violation of Title VII. She also asserted a wrongful discharge claim under ERISA. In its lengthy and exhaustive opinion and order granting South Central’s motion for summary judgment of dismissal, the district court patiently detailed the facts and law applicable to Francis’s claims, explaining the reasons why her action could not survive South Central’s summary judgment motion. We have carefully considered that opinion in light of the record on appeal, including the parties’ briefs and record excerpts, and we conclude that the district court’s judgment is not only free of error but imminently correct in all respects. For us to write further would add nothing. We therefore affirm the district court’s Final Judgment of April 25, 2016 for the reasons expressed in that court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of even date. AFFIRMED. 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