IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50969
Summary Calendar
LINDA DE LA GARZA-CROOKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AT&T,
Defendant-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA 99 CA 0110-HG
--------------------
March 22, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Linda De La Garza-Crooks appeals the summary
judgment dismissal of her claims against AT&T alleging violations
of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), Equal Pay Act (EPA),
Title VII, the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act
(ERISA), and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Dismissal of
Appellant’s ADA, EPA, Title VII and ERISA claims was predicated
upon a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. Appellant
concedes that she did not object to the magistrate’s report,
despite being informed of the need to object by the magistrate’s
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, we review the district
court’s decision solely for plain error. See Douglass v. United
Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc). To the extent that Appellant challenges the district
court’s dismissal of her ADA, EPA, Title VII and ERISA claims,
she falls woefully short of establishing such error.
With respect to appellant’s FMLA “pure” interference claim,
we affirm for the reason stated in the district court’s opinion:
appellant suffered no cognizable injury because of any FMLA
violations by AT&T. Appellant never alleged she was discharged
or retaliated against because she exercised rights under the
FMLA. Rather, she alleges that AT&T interfered by discouraging
her from using her FMLA leave. Generally, proof of injury under
the FMLA requires evidence that the plaintiff was denied FMLA
leave improperly. See Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193
F.3d 1274, 1274 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[A] plaintiff suffers no FMLA
injury when she receives all the leave she requests. . . .”). No
evidence in the record suggests that AT&T ever denied appellant
any requested FMLA leave. Assuming that discouragement from use
of FMLA leave is sufficient to state an FMLA injury, appellant
has failed to present any evidence that she refrained from taking
FMLA leave to which she was entitled because of actions by AT&T.
To the contrary, the record suggests that appellant took all FMLA
leave available to her during the period relevant to this case.
Thus, appellant has not established a fact issue that would
preclude summary judgment in favor of AT&T.
2
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court.
AFFIRMED.
3