### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-41007 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant
v. BURKE CENTER, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:11-CV-109

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Whit e , p r o ceeding pro se a nd in forma pauperis as he did in the district c ourt, appeals that court’s judgment dismissing his claims against his former employer, Defendant-Appellee, the Burke Center,

a governmental health authority serving a multi-county area o f East Texas. The district c o u rt granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss White’s claims gr ounded in alleged violations of T itle VII o f the C ivil Rights Act U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 19, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-41007 Document: 00512178844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2013No. 12-41007

of 1 964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5, and the Americans With D isabilities Act, alleging

sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The court did so after determining that White had failed to p resent any summary judgment evidence of employment discrimination or retaliation (other than h is subjective beliefs) sufficient to e stab l i s h a genuine issue o f material fact that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons put forth by Appellee for firing White were pretextual or that it had retaliated against White for anything at all. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the applicable facts and law

as presented by the p arties i n their appellate briefs and by the magistrate judge to whom this case was transferred with the consent of the partie s p u r s u a nt to 28 U. S.C. §836, and we are satisfied that her Final Judgment of August 28, 2012, dismissing White’s action, should be affirmed for essentially the reasons
p ati e ntly e xp lained in the m agistrate judge’s 15 page Memorandum Opinion and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, also d ated August 28, 2012. In

ess e n c e , s he correctly d etermined that White was fired on the basis of a unanimous decision o f a five-administrator committee (two male and three female) because of h i s r epeated refusal to comply with instructions and guidelines fo r b i l l i ng Medicaid, despite his having b een trained in the proper methodology, cautioned following numerous failures t o c o mply, placed on probation for such billin g e r r o r s , and billed Medicaid for the time he spent on t r a v e l o r on time other than directly in the service of m ental health client s o f Appellee, in disregard of e xp r e s s i n s tructions not to do so. Neither do White’s

own healthcare providers or any other e videnc e s u p p o rt a c laim of a disability recognized under the ADA; nor is there record evidence of any protected act or omission by White in retaliation for which Appellee might have terminated his emp l o y m e nt or taken any adverse action. I n contrast, Appellee adduced substantial summary judgment evidence i n support of the c o n c lusion that its firing of White was groun d e d in legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons that

2 Case: 12-41007 Document: 00512178844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2013No. 12-41007

were in no way related to his sex, his age, or any disability, actual o r perceived. White’s vague r efe r e n c e s t o “evidence” that h e would p resent on trial fall well short of the standard required by this and other courts to establish the presence of the genuine issue of material fact. The judgment of the district court is, in all respects, AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-41007 Document: 00512178844 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/19/2013