Filed: Jun. 13, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-11377 No. 97-10150 Summary Calendar CALVIN K. ADAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DICKINSON PLACE CHARITABLE CORPORATION; DONALD LEARNER, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-1358-D - - - - - - - - - - June 11, 1997 Before Wisdom, Jolly, and Benavides, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Calvin Adam was denied access to the East Dallas Se
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-11377 No. 97-10150 Summary Calendar CALVIN K. ADAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DICKINSON PLACE CHARITABLE CORPORATION; DONALD LEARNER, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-1358-D - - - - - - - - - - June 11, 1997 Before Wisdom, Jolly, and Benavides, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Calvin Adam was denied access to the East Dallas Sen..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-11377
No. 97-10150
Summary Calendar
CALVIN K. ADAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DICKINSON PLACE CHARITABLE CORPORATION;
DONALD LEARNER,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:96-CV-1358-D
- - - - - - - - - -
June 11, 1997
Before Wisdom, Jolly, and Benavides, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Calvin Adam was denied access to the East Dallas Senior
Citizen’s Center, a federally funded facility located on the
premises of a senior-citizen’s housing facility owned by
Dickinson Place Charitable Corporation (“Dickinson”) and
administered by Donald Learner. Adam filed suit against Dickinson
and Learner alleging that he suffers from a manic-depressive
*
The court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
bipolar disorder and contending that he was denied access to the
Center because of his mental condition in violation of § 12182(a)
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and §794 of the
Rehabilitation Act. The district court found that Adam failed to
present evidence from which a trier of fact could infer that he
was disabled within the meaning of the Acts and entered summary
judgment in favor of Dickinson and Learner, dismissing Adam’s
disability-discrimination claim with prejudice. On appeal Adam
argues that the district court erred in finding that he failed to
present qualifying evidence that he was “disabled” within the
meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He also argues that the district
court erred in failing to find that he was perceived as being
disabled. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the
parties and conclude that summary judgment was appropriate.
Adam’s conclusional allegation that his mental condition “limits
[his] life activities” is insufficient to create a genuine issue
of material fact.1 Adam’s newly raised argument that he was
discriminated against based on a perceived disability does not
rise to the level of plain error.2
AFFIRMED.
1
See Waggonner v. City of Garland, Texas,
987 F.2d 1160,
1166(5th Cir. 1993).
2
See Highlands Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
27
F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,
513 U.S. 1112
(1995).