UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-31306
Summary Calendar
JUDY M. DEBOSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; ET AL,
Defendants,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MPW Stone, Secretary,
in his official capacity
Defendant-Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
JUDY M. DEBOSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Togo D West, Jr. Secretary,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(92-CV-2774-E)
July 24, 1998
Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Judy M. DeBose, an African-American woman formerly employed by
the New Orleans District of the Army Corps of Engineers, filed a
*
Under 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
suit against the United States Department of the Army in which she
alleged that the defendant subjected her to several forms of
unlawful employment discrimination. The magistrate judge entered
partial summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that
DeBose had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with
respect to her retaliation and handicap discrimination claims.
After conducting a bench trial, the magistrate dismissed DeBose’s
remaining claims that she was subjected to a hostile work
environment and wrongfully discharged on the basis of her race.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s factual findings
and legal conclusions. DeBose timely filed a notice of appeal from
this final judgment. We affirm.
We review de novo the magistrate judge’s grant of partial
summary judgment in the Army’s favor.2 We agree with the
magistrate judge and the district court; DeBose’s handicap
discrimination and retaliation claims cannot survive the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment. DeBose simply did not
raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant
discriminated against her solely on the basis of her alleged
physical impairments.3 Neither did DeBose raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether the defendant retaliated against her
2
Armstrong v. City of Dallas, 997 F.2d 62, 65 (5th Cir.
1993).
3
See Leckelt v. Board of Commissioners of Hospital District
No. 1, 909 F.2d 820, 825 (5th Cir. 1990).
2
for filing a discrimination complaint. We are not persuaded that
any adverse employment action she suffered was causally related to
her decision to file a discrimination complaint.4
We review for clear error the district court’s post-trial
dismissal of DeBose’s wrongful discharge and hostile work
environment claims.5 “A finding is clearly erroneous when although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.”6 The district court’s findings are not
clearly erroneous. The record amply supports both the magistrate
judge’s and the district court’s conclusion that any employment
action directed to DeBose by the defendant was not motivated by
racial animus. The defendant articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for taking the challenged employment
action.7
AFFIRMED.
4
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 705 (5th
Cir. 1997).
5
Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041, 1044 (n. 1)
(5th Cir. 1998).
6
EEOC v. Clear Lake Dodge, 60 F.3d 1146, 1151 (5th Cir.
1995).
7
See Grimes v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1996).
3