Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30950/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30950-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Adams
Appellee
Terri Scott Anderson
Appellee
Vyron L. Brown
Appellant
City of Shreveport
Appellee
Community Development
Appellee
Keith Hightower
Appellee
Ramon Lafitte
Appellee
J. C. Marshall
Appellee
Marcia Nelson
Appellee
Eva Phillips
Appellee
Lillian Priest
Appellee
Unknown Employees
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30950

Summary Calendar

 

VYRON L BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF SHREVEPORT; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, on behalf of

Neighborhood Revitalization Program, on behalf of Emergency

Recovery Program, on behalf of Permits Department, on behalf of

Paint Your Heart Out; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES; RON ADAMS; EVA PHILLIPS;

MARCIA NELSON; J C MARSHALL; KEITH HIGHTOWER; TERRI SCOTT

ANDERSON; RAMON LAFITTE; LILLIAN PRIEST

Defendants - Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-2415

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vyron Brown appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the City of Shreveport and other defendants,

dismissing Brown’s § 1981 and § 1983 racial discrimination claims

with prejudice. 

 Case: 03-30950 Document: 0051427295 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2004
No. 03-30950

-2-

1 Holtzclaw v. DSC Communications Corp., 255 F.3d 254, 257-58

(5th Cir. 2001).

2 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). 

3 Holtzclaw, 255 F.3d at 257-58.

4 General Bldg. Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458

U.S. 375, 391 (1982).

5 Webster v. Houston, 735 F.2d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1984) (en

banc); Bennett v. Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, 767 (5th Cir. 1984).

We review de novo the district court’s order granting

summary judgment.1 We will affirm a summary judgment only when

there is no genuine issue of material fact.2 But “if the

nonmovant fails to establish facts in support of an essential

element of his prima facie claim, summary judgment is

appropriate.”3

Brown has failed to establish facts in support of multiple

elements of his § 1981 and § 1983 claims. First, Brown provides

no evidence that the relevant state actors had policy-making

authority such that their discretionary decisions could

constitute an official municipal policy. Second Brown provides

no evidence of widespread and persistent discrimination that

could constitute a custom fairly representing an official policy. 

Third, Brown provides no evidence of purposeful discrimination to

support his § 1981 claim.4 Finally, Brown provides no evidence

that he was treated less favorably than similarly-situated people

outside the protected class. Given these failings, summary

judgment was appropriate.5

 Case: 03-30950 Document: 0051427295 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2004
No. 03-30950

-3-

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-30950 Document: 0051427295 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2004