UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-31006
Summary Calendar
JOSEPH L. JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; LAWRENCE ST. BLANC;
Secretary; BRIAN EDDINGTON, General Counsel; VON M. MEADOR,
Administrative Director; EDWARD L. GALLEGOS,
Public Utilities Administrator; HAROLD J. LASSERRE, JR.,
Supervisor, Utilities,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana
Lower Docket Number 96-CV-3314-C
June 23, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
Reverend Joseph L. Jones appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment on civil rights claims he brought against
his former employer, the Louisiana Public Service Commission.
Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Preliminarily, we note that Jones’s pro se brief dwells
on two claims that are not properly before this court. Jones
contends that the PSC violated Louisiana law in terminating him as
a probationary employee. As best we can determine, he made no
claim founded on Louisiana law in the district court. Second,
Jones raises before this court the ADA claim that he voluntarily
dismissed in the district court along with his other claims that
were not resolved by Judge Parker’s March, 1998 grant of partial
summary judgment. This appeals court has no power to decide claims
abandoned in the district court or never raised in that court at
all. We will not consider them here.
As for Jones’s civil rights claims, he asserts violations
of substantive and procedural due process and the First Amendment,
and racial discrimination. All of these claims arise out of the
way in which his superiors responded to his claims of sleep apnea
as the reason for attendance problems during the probationary
period. Having carefully reviewed Jones’s brief and pertinent
portions of the record, we conclude that his brief fails to address
the grounds on which the district court granted summary judgment.
Jones does not cite evidence, as opposed to his conclusions and
speculations, creating material fact issues on these civil rights
claims. He does not satisfactorily explain how his due process
rights were violated, because he failed to show that there is no
adequate state post-termination remedy. Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97
2
F.3d 91 (5th Cir. 1996). His retaliation claims are factually
unsupported. Because the defendants submitted evidence valid for
summary judgment purposes that established the reasons for their
decision and applicable PSC procedures, and plaintiff’s evidence
was either not relevant or not responsive, summary judgment was
properly granted for the defendants. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106
S.Ct. 2548 (1986).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3