Case: 19-60563 Document: 00515262981 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 19-60563
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar January 8, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
LANCE E. FELTON, Clerk
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI,
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
U.S.D.C. No. 3:18-CV-74
Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Lance Felton appeals the district court’s summary-
judgment dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims
against Defendant-Appellee, the City of Jackson, Mississippi (“the City”).
Felton asserts that the district court erred in dismissing his ADA claims
because (1) he was a qualified individual with a disability, (2) it was not him
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 19-60563 Document: 00515262981 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2020
No. 19-60563
but the City that frustrated the interactive process, (3) the City failed to
accommodate his disability, and (4) his termination for violating the City’s
attendance policies was pretextual. Felton also contends that issues of material
fact made summary judgment inappropriate.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo and apply the same
standard as the district court. McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551, 556
(5th Cir. 2007) (citing Willis v. Coca Cola Enters., Inc., 445 F.3d 413, 416 (5th
Cir. 2006)). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the district court’s
opinion, and we are satisfied that Felton has presented no evidence that (1) he
could perform the essential functions of his job as a police lieutenant, even with
accommodations, or (2) an alternative position was open and he could perform
the essential functions of such a position. He has therefore failed to make a
prima facie case for discrimination. See Moss v. Harris Cty. Constable Precinct
One, 851 F.3d 413, 417–20 (5th Cir. 2017) (affirming summary-judgment
dismissal of ADA claims because plaintiff failed to present evidence that he
could perform the essential functions of his original job or an alternative and
failed to present evidence that an alternative job was available).
We are convinced that the district court was correct in dismissing
Felton’s claims, so we affirm that court’s judgment for the reasons expressed
in its opinion.
AFFIRMED.
2