United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 25, 2006
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60408
_______________________
SHIRLEY ANN SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE;
GAYLE NICHOLSON, Postmaster, U. S. Postal Service, Mississippi
District; JOHN DOES, U.S. POSTAL SERVICES;
EUGENIA M. CHISOLM; REBA B. SPELL; DUNN LAMPTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
No. 3:02-CV-1695
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In 2002, Appellant Shirley Ann Smith filed an action
pro se against the United States Postal Service and various other
defendants (“the Postal Service”), asserting claims for discrimina-
tion, retaliation, and other wrongful employment practices under
ten different bodies of law and/or legal theories. In July 2004,
the district court dismissed Smith’s claim under USERRA for lack of
jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Postal Service moved for summary
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
judgment on all remaining claims. Smith’s response to the summary
judgment only addressed four theories of recovery: Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Veterans Preference Act, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and retaliation. The district court
held that Smith had abandoned the claims she had failed to address,
and granted the Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment on the
four remaining claims. Smith now appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the Postal Service.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record of this case,
and having fully considered the parties’ respective briefing and
arguments, we find no reversible error in the district court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law. We therefore AFFIRM the
final judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons
stated in its Opinion and Order.
AFFIRMED.