Filed: Jul. 11, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSF I L E D FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 11, 2007 _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 07-40144 Summary Calendar _ IGALIOUS “IKE” MILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS; CITY OF PORT ARTHUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SECTION 4A CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (1:05-CV-298) - Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSF I L E D FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 11, 2007 _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 07-40144 Summary Calendar _ IGALIOUS “IKE” MILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS; CITY OF PORT ARTHUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SECTION 4A CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (1:05-CV-298) - Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER ..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSF I L E D FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 11, 2007 _____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 07-40144 Summary Calendar _____________________ IGALIOUS “IKE” MILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS; CITY OF PORT ARTHUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SECTION 4A CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees ---------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (1:05-CV-298) ---------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Igalious “Ike” Mills appeals from the district court’s grant of the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, granting Judgment as Matter of Law, which rejected all claims asserted by Mills in this racial discrimination action. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, including the district court’s exhaustive Memorandum and Order and Final Judgment, both filed December 6, 2006, as well as the law and facts as set * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. forth in the briefs of the parties. For the same reasons and reasoning explicated by the district court in said Memorandum and Order, the district court’s judgment and all post-judgment orders are, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 2