IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-50089
Summary Calendar
____________________
MYRTLE KELLY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, ET AL,
Defendants,
PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-94-CV-289)
_________________________________________________________________
August 19, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-appellant Myrtle Kelly appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to her employer, Payless Shoe
Source, on her Title VII sex-discrimination claims for sexual
harassment and retaliation, and on her claims for negligent
retention and supervision and invasion of privacy. We affirm.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIRCUIT 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIRCUIT
RULE 47.5.4.
Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires
that the brief present the contentions of the appellant with
respect to the issues with reasons and citations to authorities.
See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a). In her brief, Kelly describes only her
complaints about her appointed counsel, and she only challenges
the substance of the district court’s decision by incorporating
by reference two filings she made in the district court,
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge. These issues are not
adequately briefed, and we therefore decline to address them.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)
(declining to consider arguments in other pleadings that the pro
se appellant attempted to incorporate by reference).
In addition to the incorporated arguments, Kelly contends
that her appointed counsel was trying to get a job with the
defendants’ law firm and thus provided her with less than
adequate representation in the district court. She complains
that (1) he did not present all the evidence available, including
evidence that she specifically requested him to present to the
court; (2) he failed to take depositions of important witnesses
after agreeing to do so; (3) he failed to ask her any questions
on the record at her deposition; and (4) he signed a stipulation
of dismissal with prejudice of defendant May Department Stores
without her consent. These issues were not raised below, and
generally, we will not consider on appeal matters not presented
2
to the lower court. See Quenzer v. United States (In re
Quenzer), 19 F.3d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, these
issues are unlikely to provide a basis for reversal.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
judgment.
3