UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 00-11211
Summary Calendar
__________________
GLORIA J. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF DALLAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas
USDC No. 3:98-CV-2169-M
______________________________________________
August 7, 2001
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gloria J. Williams appeals from a summary judgment dismissing
her claims against the City of Dallas. Construing liberally her
brief, she claims that the district court erred in considering the
Texas Workforce Commission’s determination that she was not
discharged for misconduct, the district court erred in not
permitting her to address the court following the adverse ruling on
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the summary judgment motion, and that the magistrate erred in
initially declining to appoint counsel for the prosecution of her
case. We find no merit in her arguments.
The decision of the Texas Workforce Commission was not part of
a response to the summary judgment motion and was therefore not
properly before the district court. In any event, under express
Texas law, the findings of the Texas Workforce Commission have no
collateral estoppel effect and are not admissible evidence in other
proceedings. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 213-007. Having ruled on the
motion for summary judgment, the district court had no duty to hear
oral argument from the appellant who had appointed counsel;
moreover, appellant has not shown prejudice from the denial of oral
argument as the district court properly granted summary judgment
based on the summary judgment record. Finally, the complaint
related to the denial of appointed counsel fails because she was
appointed counsel prior to the disposition of her claim by summary
judgment; further, she did not timely appeal from the magistrate’s
initial determination to deny her request for appointed counsel.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2