Mary Webber v. Christus Schumpert Hlth Sys, 11-30924 (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 11-30924
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: Case: 11-30924 Document: 00511901225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 27, 2012 No. 11-30924 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARY LASHONDA WEBBER, also known as LaShonda Webber, Plaintiff–Appellant v. CHRISTUS SCHUMPERT HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant–Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:10-CV-1177 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER an
Summary: Case: 11-30924 Document: 00511901225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 27, 2012 No. 11-30924 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARY LASHONDA WEBBER, also known as LaShonda Webber, Plaintiff–Appellant v. CHRISTUS SCHUMPERT HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant–Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:10-CV-1177 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and..
More
Case: 11-30924 Document: 00511901225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 27, 2012 No. 11-30924 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARY LASHONDA WEBBER, also known as LaShonda Webber, Plaintiff–Appellant v. CHRISTUS SCHUMPERT HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant–Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:10-CV-1177 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff–Appellant Mary LaShonda Webber appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant–Appellee Christus Schumpert Health System, arguing that the district court erred in finding that she failed to meet her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation. Based on the record before us, the district court’s judgement is affirmed, essentially for the same reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. AFFIRMED. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Source: CourtListener
