Filed: Sep. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-10240 Summary Calendar _ DIANNE MARIE HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., doing business as Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CV-450-Y - September 17, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Invoking, inter alia, Title VII, Dianne Marie Harper
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-10240 Summary Calendar _ DIANNE MARIE HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., doing business as Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CV-450-Y - September 17, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Invoking, inter alia, Title VII, Dianne Marie Harper b..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 01-10240
Summary Calendar
____________________
DIANNE MARIE HARPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.,
doing business as Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CV-450-Y
--------------------
September 17, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Invoking, inter alia, Title VII, Dianne Marie Harper brought
this action alleging that she has subjected to sex-based
discrimination. On the motion of the defendant, the district
court dismissed her second amended complaint, with prejudice, for
insufficient service of process, lack of subject-matter
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. Harper appeals but
fails to develop any legal or factual support for the position
that service on the defendant was sufficient. This court “will
not raise and discuss legal issues that [Harper] has failed to
assert.” Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The failure to challenge the
district court’s determination that she did not effect proper
service of process renders Harper’s appeal without merit and thus
frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See
5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
DISMISSED.
2