Filed: Jul. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: Case: 11-60261 Document: 00511918420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 12, 2012 No. 11-60261 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PEARL L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff–Appellant v. EARL WATKINS, In his capacity as Superintendent of Jackson Public Schools District; TONY WINTERS, In his official capacity and individual capacity, Defendants–Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Di
Summary: Case: 11-60261 Document: 00511918420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 12, 2012 No. 11-60261 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PEARL L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff–Appellant v. EARL WATKINS, In his capacity as Superintendent of Jackson Public Schools District; TONY WINTERS, In his official capacity and individual capacity, Defendants–Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis..
More
Case: 11-60261 Document: 00511918420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 12, 2012
No. 11-60261 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
PEARL L. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
EARL WATKINS, In his capacity as Superintendent of Jackson Public
Schools District; TONY WINTERS, In his official capacity and individual
capacity,
Defendants–Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:07-CV-621
Before KING, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After having reviewed the pertinent portions of the record and studied the
briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district court granting Appellees’ motion
for judgment as a matter of law for essentially the reasons given by the district
court in its opinion. See Johnson v. Watkins,
803 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D. Miss.
2011).
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.