IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60037
Conference Calendar
TROY T. REDMOND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; FRED CHILDS;
DAVID FONDREN; WOOD BROWN; JOHN HALTOM; RUFUS BURKS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:99-CV-804-BN
--------------------
December 11, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Troy T. Redmond moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) on appeal from the order granting summary judgment for the
defendants in Redmond’s employment-discrimination and civil-
rights action, an action in which Redmond challenged his
termination by the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC).
Redmond alleges that MDOC failed to present evidence of policies
and procedures that he had violated. He argues that the
circumstances in his case suggested that his termination was
racially motivated and that the reasons offered for the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-60037
-2-
termination were pretextual. He argues that the defendants
failed to investigate the allegations against him, suggesting a
causal link between Redmond’s protected activities when speaking
against an action taken against another MDOC employee and his
termination. He alleges that an incident between Hearing Officer
David Fondren and him before his first termination showed the
actions of a white male against a black employee to cover up “the
action of white male attack on the black employee at this
hearing.” He contends that the defendants were not entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity or to qualified immunity because he
was not allowed to use a tape recorder at his employment hearing;
according to Redmond, use of a tape recorder is a state-created
right. Redmond argues that the defendants violated the Equal
Protection Clause by using MDOC policies and procedures against
him although he had not violated those policies and procedures.
He finally argues that his case should have been consolidated
with another case raising issues arising from the conspiracy at
issue in the current case.
The evidence supporting the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment indicated that Redmond’s job actions were motivated by
his violations of employee rules. Nothing in the record gives
rise to an inference of racial discrimination. See Boyd v. State
Farm Ins. Co., 158 F.3d 326, 328-29 (5th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 526 U.S. 1051 (1999). The grant of summary judgment on
Redmond’s employment-discrimination claim was not erroneous.
Redmond offers no factual allegations or legal arguments
relevant to his immunity contentions; his contention that use of
No. 01-60037
-3-
a tape-recorder was a state-created right; his allegation that
the defendants conspired against him; his contention that the
Equal Protection Clause was violated; or his contention that his
cases should have been consolidated. He has failed to brief
those issues for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Redmond has
failed to show that he will raise any nonfrivolous issues for
appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.