Case ID: f-appx_565/html/0318-01.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

William J. HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES; Lesley Varner, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-11166
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 28, 2014.
    William J. Hunter, Dallas, TX, pro se.
    Charles Christian Frederiksen, Jr., Hallett & Perrin, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

William J. Hunter (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment and dismissing his discrimination and retaliation claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), and his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We AFFIRM for the following reasons:

1. Appellant fails to argue or brief any alleged error in the disposition of his race-based claims in the district court. Accordingly, any such claims are waived on appeal. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993);
2. Appellant’s arguments that the court below erred in dismissing his retaliation claims and that he was terminated for protected activity fail both because he has not shown a causal connection between his allegedly protected activity and his termination, and because even assuming the same, he has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the asserted reason for his termination was pretextual. See McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551, 557-58 (5th Cir.2007). The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, which were approved and adopted by the district court, provide the essential and more detailed rationale for rejecting Appellant’s claims on appeal. No additional writing is necessary.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.