IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-40290
Summary Calendar
_____________________
ALLEN A. MOTEN, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont
(1:97-CV-610)
_________________________________________________________________
October 6, 1998
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This appeal comes from the district court’s entry of summary
judgment against a pro se Title VII plaintiff. Allen A. Moten, Jr.
brought an action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against his former employer, Waste
Management of Texas, Inc. (“Waste Management of Texas”). Moten
alleged that he was terminated because of his color. The district
court granted Waste Management of Texas’s motion for summary
judgment on the basis that Moten’s admissions negated his entire
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
cause of action and left no fact issues to be decided.
Pursuant to the district court’s local rules, this case was
assigned “track three” status for discovery purposes. This case
status allows (among other discovery devices) for 25 requests for
admission. Subsequent to the track three status assignment, Waste
Management served Moten with fifteen requests for admission. A
party has thirty days in which to respond to such requests. FED.
R. CIV. P. 36(a). The matter of each request is admitted if a party
fails to respond within this time limit. Moten failed to respond
to the requests for admission within the thirty days, or even by
the time the district court issued its order granting the motion
for summary judgment.
Important to his Title VII claim, the admissions included:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:
Admit that WMT [Waste Management of Texas] terminated
your employment on June 13, 1996, based solely on receipt
of disciplinary actions prior to termination, rudeness to
customers, and unacceptable performance.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
Admit that Defendant terminated your employment on
June 13, 1996, solely for legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:
Admit that WMT never discriminated against you in any
manner based on your race and/or color.
The district court appropriately decided that these admissions by
a Title VII plaintiff justify granting a Title VII defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Walton v. Bisco
Industries, Inc., 119 F.3d 368, 370 (5th Cir. 1997) (discussing
2
standards that a Title VII plaintiff must meet to overcome a
defendant’s motion for summary judgment).
Moten’s only argument on appeal is that the district court
erred in granting Waste Management of Texas’s earlier “Motion to
Correct Party Name.” By granting this motion, the district court
recognized that “the proper defendant in this case is Waste
Management of Texas, Inc., not Waste Management, Inc.” Moten
argues, however, that he worked for Waste Management, Inc., rather
than Waste Management of Texas, Inc.
We will review the district court’s grant of a motion to
change a party’s name for abuse of discretion.1 Important to
Moten’s argument on appeal, the request for admissions (discussed
above) included:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Admit that you did not work for Waste Management, Inc.,
but rather, you worked for Waste Management of Texas,
Inc.
Moten consented to this admission, along with the others, by
default. FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a). Waste Management of Texas
introduced evidence that it was the entity served by Moten in this
case, and that it was the entity that owned the facility where
1
The abuse of discretion standard of review is used in
reviewing, for example, a district court’s decision whether to
grant a FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) motion to amend pleadings. Jacobsen
v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1998). We find this
standard of review appropriate in reviewing the district court’s
ruling on Waste Management of Texas’s Motion to Change Party Name.
3
Moten was employed.2 Given the admission and the evidence, we hold
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in correcting
the defendant party’s name.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order granting
Waste Management of Texas, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is
A F F I R M E D.
2
Apparently, Waste Management, Inc. is a parent company of
Waste Management of Texas, Inc. In its brief, and pursuant to Fed.
R. App. P. 26.1, Waste Management of Texas, Inc. has listed Waste
Management, Inc. in its Corporate Disclosure Statement.
4