Filed: Feb. 25, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30621 Conference Calendar DANNY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-2216 - - - - - - - - - - February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Danny Williams appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Unit
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30621 Conference Calendar DANNY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-2216 - - - - - - - - - - February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Danny Williams appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Unite..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30621
Conference Calendar
DANNY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-2216
- - - - - - - - - -
February 21, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Danny Williams appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for defendant United Parcel Service, Inc., as to his
state-law claims alleging wrongful termination and defamation.
The district court held that Williams’ claims were preempted
under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
Pro se briefs must be liberally construed, see Haines v.
Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), but pro se parties are still
required to brief their arguments in order to preserve them. See
Price v. Digital Equipment Corp.,
846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-30621
-2-
1988). Williams’ arguments on appeal are conclusory, and the two
legal authorities cited by Williams are not relevant to the
instant case because they involve federal-law claims rather than
state-law claims. Williams has cited no relevant authority and
has not briefed the only appealable issue, i.e., whether the
district court properly denied his claims as preempted under
§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s
disposition of his instant claims.
AFFIRMED.