UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 01-60662
Summary Calendar
Docket No. 1:99-CV-379-GR
Docket No. 1:00-CV-362-GR
_______________________
MARIA S. OCHOA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DR. LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, Acting Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
_________________________________________________________________
April 25, 2002
BEFORE JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Ochoa filed a Title VII action alleging retaliation and
age discrimination and claims for intentional infliction of
emotional distress and negligence. Ochoa is a child-care worker
employed by the Air Force since 1979. In 1994, Ochoa became the
Child Development Director of the East Region at Keesler Air Force
Base (pay level GS-1701-09). She was later reassigned to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Coordinator of the Family Day Care Program (also GS-1701-09).
Ochoa was not happy with this transfer and other employment
actions, and filed numerous complaints with the EEOC alleging
racial and age discrimination. Between 1995 and September 1999,
Ochoa filed at least 10 complaints with the EEOC, alleging
retaliation, non-selection and other forms of racial and age
discrimination. These complaints are the subject of this suit.
The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed all
claims.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that Ochoa
did not file a timely response to summary judgment before the
district court. See District Court’s Memorandum Opinion at 1.n.1.
Many of Appellant’s arguments in this appeal are based on evidence
never presented to the district court. This court has
contemporaneously granted a Motion to Strike Portions of
Appellant’s Record Excerpts that were not presented to the district
court. Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 10, this court reviews only the record
that was before the district court.
Ochoa’s failure to respond to the summary judgment motion
and failure to develop a record below are fatal to her case. See
Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir. 1992) (explaining
that this court’s inquiry is “limited to the summary judgment
record before the trial court: the parties cannot add exhibits,
depositions, or affidavits to support their positions on appeal.”).
We have reviewed the district court opinion in light of the
2
evidence before that court, which carefully applied the proper
legal standards. Having done so, we find no reversible error of
law or fact and AFFIRM the court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3