Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Antoinette Lampkin v. Staffmark, 14-20106 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 14-20106 Visitors: 25
Filed: Aug. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-20106 Document: 00512724724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-20106 FILED Summary Calendar August 6, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ANTOINETTE R. LAMPKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant v. STAFFMARK; VERONICA GARCIA; LINDSEY MILLER, Defendants – Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-3400 Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit
More
Case: 14-20106 Document: 00512724724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-20106 FILED Summary Calendar August 6, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ANTOINETTE R. LAMPKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant v. STAFFMARK; VERONICA GARCIA; LINDSEY MILLER, Defendants – Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-3400 Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Antoinette R. Lampkin appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Staffmark Holdings, Inc., 1 in her lawsuit purporting to allege racial discrimination and discrimination based upon a relationship with a disabled person. We have carefully reviewed the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 1 Although Lampkin originally also sued Veronica Garcia and Lindsey Miller, they were never served, and she intentionally deleted them in her amended complaint, stating in her motion for leave: “Plaintiff wishes to allege her Complaint against the entity only.” Thus, they are not before us on this appeal. Case: 14-20106 Document: 00512724724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 No. 14-20106 relevant portions of the record in light of the parties briefs. We conclude that the district court’s opinion contains no reversible error. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer