IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10365
Conference Calendar
SWINETTA BENTRELL MARSH, By her next friend Stella Marsh Locke
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Et Al.,
Defendants
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CV-2255-R
- - - - - - - - - -
October 23, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Swinetta Bentrell Marsh appeals the granting of defendant
Dallas Independent School District’s (“DISD”) motion for summary
judgment on Marsh’s sexual harassment claims under Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688. The
district court granted summary judgment for defendant DISD
because it concluded that Marsh had failed to allege facts
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 97-10365
-2-
sufficient to impose liability on defendant DISD under Title IX.
The district court based its ruling on this court’s recent
decisions in Canutillo Independent School District v. Leija, 101
F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 2434 (1997),
Rosa H. v. San Elizario Independent School District, 106 F.3d 648
(5th Cir. 1997), and Doe v. Lago Vista Independent School
District, 106 F.3d 1223 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert.
filed, 65 USLW 3799 (U.S. May 23, 1997)(No. 96-1866). Marsh
argues that the relied-upon cases are not controlling law in the
instant case or, alternatively, should be overruled.
Marsh fails to demonstrate, however, that the cases relied
upon by the district court are not controlling or to present any
argument that they have been misapplied. Furthermore, even if
this panel of the court were so inclined, it could not overrule
the decision of a prior panel. Such a decision may only be
overruled pursuant to en banc consideration or a superseding
contrary decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. In re Dyke, 943
F.2d 1435, 1442 (5th Cir. 1991). Marsh’s appeal thus raises no
issue of arguable merit. Accordingly, Marsh’s appeal is
dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.