United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 26, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50479
Summary Calendar
YOLANDA M. MERLA,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant,
versus
SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,
Defendants - Counter Claimants - Appellees.
YOLANDA M. MERLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division
USDC No. SA-02-CA-0277-WWJ
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:*
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 05-50479
-2-
Plaintiff Yolanda Merla appeals the dismissal on motion for
summary judgment of her employment related claims against the San
Antonio Independent School District and two of its employees.
Merla’s case arises from the termination of her employment after
she exhausted the school district’s two year disability limit and
failed to return to work. Based on our review of the district
court’s opinion, the briefs and the record, we conclude that the
district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor
of the defendants and dismissing Merla’s claims.
Assuming Merla’s termination was an adverse employment
action, Merla failed to present sufficient evidence to establish
a prima facie case of Title VII gender discrimination or
retaliation, age discrimination under the ADEA, or § 1983
violation of due process in relation to handling of six
grievances Merla filed with the Texas Education Agency. The
district court also did not err in dismissing Merla’s pendant
state claims without prejudice. Merla raised no objections to
dismissal of her other claims against the defendants. In
summary, the district court properly concluded that Merla failed
to established that the termination of her employment was based
on anything other than a neutral, non-discriminatory policy of
limiting disability leave. Nothing in Merla’s Rule 59 motion
undermines that conclusion.
47.5.4.
2
No. 05-50479
-3-
Merla’s pro se briefs raise numerous complaints about the
deficiency of her attorney’s representation. However, this
appeal is not the appropriate forum to address those issues.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the
district court’s Memorandum Opinion filed July 21, 2004 and
Memorandum Opinion and order filed February 14, 2005, we affirm
the judgment of the district court.1
AFFIRMED
1
We deny appellant’s motions for sanctions and to correct
procedural errors and subsequent rulings and pleadings.
3