IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30357
MILTON MOSBY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
MILTON MOSBY; JOE N. MERRITT,
Plaintiffs-Appellees-
Cross-Appellants,
LENWARD E. GOREE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WADE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL.,
Defendants,
STATE OF LOUISIANA, on behalf of
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections; RICHARD L.
STALDER; JERRY CANTRELL; REUBEN
COMPTON,
Defendants-Appellants-Appellee,
Cross-Appellees.
---------------------------------
LENWARD E. GOREE, ET AL.
Plaintiffs,
LENWARD E. GOREE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and JOE N. MERRITT,
Plaintiff-Appellee-
Cross-Appellant,
versus
BRUCE N. LYNN, ET AL.,
Defendants,
RICHARD L. STALDER; JERRY
CANTRELL; REUBEN COMPTON;
STATE OF LOUISIANA, also known
as Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections,
Defendants-Appellants-Appellees
Cross-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
March 11, 1997
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
We have carefully considered the arguments of counsel for the
parties as presented in open court, the pertinent portions of the
record, and the appellate briefs filed by the parties, as a result
of which we are satisfied that the district court committed no
reversible error and should be affirmed to the extent that under
Title VII it held the State of Louisiana liable for monetary
damages to plaintiff-appellees Mosby and Merritt but exonerated the
State of Louisiana from any liability to plaintiff-appellant Goree.
The record makes clear that the State of Louisiana was not just the
true party defendant at interest but, regardless of the absence of
formal service of process, was an actively participating litigant
essentially from the outset of the instant litigation. This is
confirmed not only by the state’s direct participation but also by
its pleadings, many of which undeniably constitute general
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
2
appearances. We find no reversible error in the quantum or
characterization of the various damage awards by the district court
or in that court’s denial of reinstatement of employment of the
prevailing plaintiffs. Even though there appears to have been some
confusion regarding the incidents on which the termination of
employment of plaintiff-appellee Milton Mosby was based, the
district court subsequently clarified the situation sufficiently to
be sustained on appeal. Consequently, all orders and judgments of
the district court are,
AFFIRMED.2
2
Judge Garwood would reverse as to plaintiff-appellee Mosby,
and thus dissents from that portion of the judgment affirming the
award to Mosby.
3