UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10281
EDITH JUANITA DAMRON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HELEN FARABEE CENTER, WICHITA COUNTY, entity being the MHMR
authority for Wichita Count, Texas, jointly and severally, et al.,
Defendants,
HELEN FARABEE CENTER, WICHITA COUNTY, entity being the MHMR
authority for Wichita County, Texas, jointly and severally;
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
EDITH JUANITA DAMRON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGE ALLEN GOULD, Individually and in his official capacity, et
al.,
Defendants,
HELEN FARABEE CENTER, WICHITA COUNTY, entity being the MHMR
authority for Wichita County, Texas, jointly and severally;
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(7:96-CV-105-X & 7:96-CV-70)
March 9, 1999
Before DAVIS, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
1
PER CURIAM:*
Edith Jaunita Damron, Plaintiff-Appellant, appeals the summary
judgment for Defendant-Appellee and the denial of her Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief from Judgment or
Order in this employment discrimination case. We affirm.
Damron contends that she attached to her Rule 60(b)(6) motion
deposition testimony garnered after summary judgment which creates
a genuine issue of material fact with regard to her 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claim. Specifically, the deposition testimony allegedly
supported her claim that her supervisor was having an amorous
affair with the individual who was promoted into Damron's job after
Damron's termination. However, as set out in the district court's
thorough and well-reasoned opinion, assuming such a fact question
exists, Damron's § 1983 claim is without merit because she failed
to even allege two of the four prima facie elements of a sex
discrimination cause of action. See Portis v. First Nat'l Bank of
New Albany, 34 F.3d 325, 328 n.6 (5th Cir. 1994).
Having reviewed the record, briefs and authorities, we affirm
for substantially the reasons stated by the district court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order date January 21, 1998.
AFFIRMED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
2