Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Doctor Daisy M. LACOUR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor Annie KILCREASE, Superintendent; Claiborne County School District, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-60125
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 6, 2010.
    Daisy M. Lacour, Flora, MS, pro se.
    Stephanie Case Edgar, Esq., Copeland, Cook, Taylor & Bush, P.A., Ridgeland, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Dr. Daisy M. Lacour, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims of sex-based employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when she was fired as principal of the Port Gibson High School during the term of her one-year contract and her state-law claim of tortious interference with business or contractual relations. Dr. Lacour also appeals the district court’s denial of her motion and supplemental motion to amend her complaint to add a claim for breach of contract.

We have now reviewed the entire record on appeal and have carefully considered the facts and law as presented therein as well as in the briefs of the parties and our independent research. As a result, we are convinced that the district court’s Opinion and Order signed December 28, 2009 granting the Defendants-Appellees’ combined motion for summary judgment was providently granted and that the court’s Opinion and Order signed January 28, 2010 denying Plaintiff-Appellant’s motion and supplemental motion to amend her complaint were proper as well. Accordingly, for the reasons patiently set forth in detail by the district court in its said opinions and orders, the judgments of the district court are, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5tii Cir. R. 47.5.4.