Case ID: f-appx_102/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charlene GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CELANESE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-11023.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 22, 2004.
    Mellannise E. Henderson-Love, Law Office of Mellannise Henderson, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jerry Lamar Mitchell, James W. Bartlett, Jr., Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, Houston, TX, for DefendantAppellee.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Charlene Garrett sued Celanese Corporation alleging claims of racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and defamation under Texas law. The district court granted Celanese’s motion to dismiss the suit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on Garrett’s failure to state a claim.

We hold that the district court correctly dismissed Garrett’s claims for the reasons given by the district court. Garrett further argues that the district court should have granted her leave to amend her complaint before granting Celanese’s motion to dismiss. While Garrett could have amended her complaint once as a matter of right, she did not exercise that right. She only made cursory mention of a request to amend her pleadings in her opposition to Celanese’s motion to dismiss, and this court has previously held that a request made in this manner does not require the district court to grant leave to amend. McKinney v. Irving Independent School District, 309 F.3d 308, 315 (5th Cir.2002). Further, Garrett never apprised the district court or this court of any facts that she would have added to her complaint that would have sufficiently stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Thus, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision granting Celanese’s motion to dismiss. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.