Case ID: f-appx_280/html/0373-01.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

Ali WARIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HARRIS COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES; Herminia Palacio, Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services, in Personal and Official Capacity; Charles Cunningham, Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services, in Personal and Official Capacity; Umair Shah, Medical Doctor, Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services, in Personal and Official Capacity; Harris County, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-20001
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 4, 2008.
    Ali Waris, Newton Square, PA, pro se.
    Bruce S. Powers, Assistant County Attorney, County Attorney’s Office for the County of Harris, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ali Waris’s employment was terminated seven weeks after he was hired as a clinic manager for Harris County. The decision to terminate Waris’s employment was based on numerous complaints about his attitude, verbal attacks, and unprofessional conduct after previous reprimands, including sending an improper email to his subordinates and supervisors about a member of the United States Congress who sponsored a public immunization event through the clinic.

Waris, acting pro se, filed suit alleging discrimination based on race and national origin and violation of constitutional rights. The district court adopted the findings and recommendation of a magistrate judge and granted summary judgment for the Defendants. We agree with the district court that Waris failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of race or national origin discrimination in that no evidence of disparate treatment was advanced. Waris also failed to adequately state any claim for violation of constitutional rights. Finding that there was no jurisdiction once the Defendants were granted summary judgment, the district court properly refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.