UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10881
Summary Calendar
THOMAS E. CRAIG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(3:97-CV-1533-D)
February 24, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Thomas Craig (“Craig”) brought action against his
former employer, Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (“Ryder”) for disability
discrimination in violation of his rights under the Americans With
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).
Craig further sought action against Ryder for intentional
infliction of emotional distress. The United States District Court
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted
summary judgment in favor of Ryder. The district court also denied
Craig's motion for leave to file amended response. Craig now
appeals. We affirm.
In 1977, Ryder hired Craig to work at its facility in Oxnard,
California. In the Fall of 1995, Craig accepted a position at
Ryder's facility in Lewisville, Texas and transferred to Texas.
Craig, however, did not report to work in Lewisville, claiming he
suffered from depression. Ryder ultimately terminated Craig's
employment in December, 1995.
Craig asserts the district court abused its discretion by
excluding proffered summary judgment evidence. We disagree. The
district court considered Craig's evidence and found it
insufficient to meet his burden to avoid summary judgment.
Craig also asserts the district court abused its discretion
when it denied Craig's Motion for Leave to File Amended Response.
A district court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to
consider evidence submitted in a post-judgment motion after the
entry of summary judgment. See Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80
F.3d 1042, 1052 (5th Cir. 1996). In addition, Craig has not
offered any explanation or excuse for failing to present sufficient
evidence prior to the district court's ruling. See id. The
district court did not abuse its discretion.
We find no merit in Craig's claims that the district court
abused its discretion in: (1) excluding evidence and (2) denying
Craig's Motion for Leave to File Amended Response. For the
2
foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
3