Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Patricia Reed v. Madison County, Mississippi, 17-60433 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 17-60433 Visitors: 22
Filed: Nov. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 17-60433 Document: 00514245352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 17-60433 Fifth Circuit Summary Calendar FILED November 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce PATRICIA REED, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant v. MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:16-CV-51 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CUR
More
Case: 17-60433 Document: 00514245352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 17-60433 Fifth Circuit Summary Calendar FILED November 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce PATRICIA REED, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant v. MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:16-CV-51 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Patricia Reed, an African-American formerly employed by the detention center operated by Defendant-Appellee Madison County, Mississippi, appeals the summary judgment of the district court that dismissed Reed’s claim of racial discrimination in her firing. Reed’s appeal is based on her assertion of pretext in the County’s denial of racial discrimination in hiring a Caucasian to replace Reed. The district court determined that there * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 17-60433 Document: 00514245352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2017 No. 17-60433 was no genuine issue of material fact in Reed’s claim of pretext and granted the County’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Reed’s action. We have now reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the district court’s extensive Opinion and Order of May 9, 2017, and we are satisfied that the district court’s reasoning and conclusion are not merely free of error, but support its Final Judgment dismissing Reed’s action with prejudice. We affirm that judgment for essentially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s Opinion and Order. 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