UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 99-20834
Summary Calendar
RICHARD J ROBERTS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RODNEY SLATER,
Secretary of Department of Transportation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-97-CV-2149)
March 30, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Roberts, plaintiff-appellant, appeals the decision of
the district court granting a portion of defendant-appellee
Department of Transportation’s (DOT) motion for summary judgment.
Robert was discharged by DOT because he was considered absent from
work without authorization (AWOL) for approximately 6 months. He
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
appealed his removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
which affirmed the removal action. Roberts then appealed the
MSPB’s decision to the district court alleging that he was
discharged in retaliation for filing EEOC charges in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq., and in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim
under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. §
8101 et seq..
The district court granted DOT’s motion for summary judgment
in part, as the court concluded that Roberts was AWOL and was not
discharged in retaliation for filing EEOC charges or a FECA claim.
The district court also denied part of DOT’s motion for summary
judgment. The court dismissed two of Roberts’s EEOC charges for
lack of jurisdiction because there was no final agency decision on
these charges, rejecting DOT’s argument Roberts consolidated all of
his EEOC charges by amending his complaint to include a copy of the
administrative judge’s rulings in his favor on two EEOC charges.
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and find
no reversible error. We AFFIRM for essentially the reasons stated
by the district court in its memorandum and order.
2