Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. State of Mississippi, 05-61184 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 05-61184 Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 22, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ December 22, 2006 No. 05-61184 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III _ Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CYNTHIA FLETCHER; GLORIA JEAN BARNES; DAVID BARNES, Minors, by Rv. THEOTIS SMITH, As Next Friend, Appearing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellees v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; ET AL, Defendants SIMP
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ December 22, 2006 No. 05-61184 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III _____________________ Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CYNTHIA FLETCHER; GLORIA JEAN BARNES; DAVID BARNES, Minors, by Rv. THEOTIS SMITH, As Next Friend, Appearing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellees v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; ET AL, Defendants SIMPSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant --------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (3:70-CV-4706) --------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* On appeal, Defendant-Appellant Simpson County School District (“the District”) asks this court to reverse the district court’s * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. ruling that denied the District’s efforts to be declared unitary and the continuing court-supervised desegregation case against it dismissed. The district court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order appealed from granted the District’s motion in part, declaring unitary status in the areas of student body compositions, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. It denied unitary status, however, and thereby retained oversight, regarding faculty and staff assignments. The court thus retained jurisdiction under the consent decree and reserved the option to re-evaluate the District’s position in one year. Based on our extensive review of the record on appeal and the parties’ briefs, we perceive no reversible error of fact or law, and therefore affirm the ruling of the district court. AFFIRMED.
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