UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-50555
Summary Calendar
_____________________
ROBERT BOHLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EXPRESS TECH, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-95-CV-770)
_________________________________________________________________
January 23, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Bohler appeals the summary judgment awarded Express
Tech, Inc., his former employer, on Bohler’s claims under the
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654; the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213;
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791-793.
The FMLA claim fails because Bohler presented insufficient
evidence that Express Tech employed over 50 employees, as required
by that act. See 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(B)(ii). His ADA claim fails
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
because, assuming arguendo that his diabetic condition is a
“disability”, he presented no evidence that he requested (and was
denied) reasonable accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A).
Finally, as conceded by Bohler in his appellate brief, the
Rehabilitation Act claim fails because Express Tech is a federal
contractor, and the that Act does not provide a private cause of
action for employees. See 29 U.S.C. § 793(b).
That summary judgment was proper is reflected in the district
court’s 14 June 1996 Order Granting Summary Judgment. Bohler
claims also that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion to withdraw deemed admissions. See FED R. CIV.
P. 36. (Bohler never responded to Express-Tech’s request for
admissions, which were properly deemed admitted. FED. R. CIV. P.
36(a).) The court determined in its summary judgment ruling that
Bohler had failed to show either good cause to reopen discovery or
a lack of prejudice to Express-Tech. FED. R. CIV. P. 36(b). We
find no abuse of discretion in this ruling.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -