IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31299
Summary Calendar
VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ENTERGY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
April 18, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is the second interlocutory appeal in this case, from a
decision of the Eastern District of Louisiana to deny Appellant
Newsome appointed counsel in her Title VII case. In the prior
appeal, we vacated and remanded with instructions to the district
court to consider the factors enumerated in Caston v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co.1 Upon remand, the district court did so. Newsome
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
556 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1977).
now appeals, arguing that the district court abused its
discretion.2
We are not convinced. The district court has broad discretion
to appoint counsel,3 and Newsome bears the burden of persuasion.4
The district court was entitled to give weight to the EEOC’s
determination that the plaintiff’s allegations do not establish a
violation of Title VII.5 The district court held that Newsome
failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge
because she was replaced by an African-American, and she can point
to no similarly situated white employee who was treated better.
The district court also held that Newsome failed to establish a
prima facie case of retaliatory discharge because she did not
identify a Title VII protected activity in which she engaged, nor
did she establish a causal link between her complaints and her
discharge. Having examined Newsome’s brief carefully, taking into
account her pro se status, we find no abuse of discretion and
affirm.
2
Appellee argues that we lack jurisdiction in this case,
because orders denying appointment of counsel are not appealable.
The prior panel to consider this case found jurisdiction, relying
on Caston, and that finding binds us as law of the case. See
Hopwood v. State of Texas, 236 F.3d 256, 272 (5th Cir. 2000).
3
See Caston, 556 F.2d at 1308.
4
Id. at 1310.
5
Id. at 1309 (“As the administrative agency statutorily
charged with the responsibility of enforcing Title VII and
presumably equipped with at least a modest amount of expertise in
the area, the determination of the EEOC is highly probative.”).
2
AFFIRMED.
3