United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 13, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60105
Summary Calendar
DANNY WILLIAMS
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:03-CV-442
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Danny Williams appeals from the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the defendants in his Title VII suit
alleging discrimination based on race and gender. We review the
district court’s order de novo. American Home Assur. Co. v.
United Space Alliance, LLC, 378 F.3d 482, 486 (5th Cir. 2004);
see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60105
-2-
Williams presents no argument in his brief concerning
allegations of discrimination based on gender. Accordingly,
those claims are deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, Williams offers
no argument concerning the district court’s conclusion that
Williams exhausted administrative remedies only with respect to
incidents occurring after March 27, 2002, which was 45 days prior
to his first contact with the EEO Counselor, and that all other
claims were unexhausted and time-barred. By failing to address
the basis of the district court’s decision, Williams has
abandoned claims related to incidents prior to March 27, 2002.
See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Williams argues that he was demoted from Food Services
Administrator to Training Instructor as a result of Associate
Warden Fisher’s racial animus and conspiracy with other prison
supervisory officials. To establish a prima facie case of
discrimination, a plaintiff must have shown that (1) he was
subject to adverse treatment or was denied an employment benefit
or opportunity by the employer; (2) he as a member of a protected
group; and (3) a similarly situated individual not a member of
his protected group was treated more favorably. See McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); see also
Auguster v. Vermilion Parish School Bd., 249 F.3d 400, 403 (5th
Cir. 2001). Williams has not shown that persons outside of a
No. 05-60105
-3-
protected class were treated more favorably than he or that the
legitimate performance-related reason articulated by the
defendants for the demotion was pretextual. See St. Mary’s Honor
Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 (1993).
Williams also argues that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel because his attorney did not produce testimony from
witnesses that allegedly would have created a genuine issue of
material fact. The right to effective assistance of counsel does
not apply in a civil context. Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785
F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). Williams further asserts in his
statement of issues that the defendants ignored an order from the
EEOC to take corrective action regarding his complaint. This
issue is not addressed because it is raised for the first time on
appeal and is inadequately briefed. See Leverette v. Louisville
Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey, 985 F.2d at
224-25. The district court did not err in its summary judgment
order.
AFFIRMED.