Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10130 S u m m ary C al en da r
DANI EL G M OORE , P l a i n tiff – A p p ell a n t v. DU N CAN VI LLE I N DE PEN DE N T S CH OO L DI STRI CT , D efen da n t– A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 06- C V

- 2085

B e fo r e G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , a n dO W E N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * D ani e l G

. M o o r e ap pe al s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s g r anto f s um m ar y j udg m e nt in fa v o ro f D u n c a n v ille In d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l D is tr ic t o n h is n a tio n a l o r ig in di s c r i m i nat i o n a c t i o n. Fo rt he f o l l o w i ng r e as o ns , t he j udg m e nti s a f f i r m e d. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS M o o r e w as em pl o ye d byt he I nde pe nde ntSc ho o lD i s t r i c ta s a n As s i s t ant Sec urit y O per at i ons O f f i c erf or sc hool s i n t he C i t y of D uncanvi l l e, Texas
. I n M ay

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 10130

2 2 0 0 6 , th e D is tr ic t te r m in a te dh is e m p lo y m e n t. M o o r e file ds u it, a lle g in gth a t h is t e r m i nat i o n was b as e d on hi s H i s pa ni cor i gi n i n vi o l at i o n of T i t l e VI I
. Fo l l o w i ng di scovery, t h e D i st ri ctf i l ed a m ot i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , t o w h i ch M oore fai l ed to repl y. Th e di st ri ctcou rt g ra n t ed the m ot i on an d d i sm i ssed t h e case w i t h pr ej udi c e . The c o ur tconcl ude d t hatM o o r e ha d no ta ddu c e d s uf f i c i e nt
ev id e n ce to dem on st rat e t erm i n ati on on accoun tof hi s nati on alori gi n . I tal so
n ot ed the D i st ri ct ’ s evi den ce t h at M oore w as t erm i n ated f or r epea t ed tardi n ess,
r e p e a te da b s e n c e s , u n p r o fe s s io n a l re m a r k s , in s u b o r d in a tio n , a n dim p r o p e r ly
s e e k in gto a dju s t h is tim e s h e e ts
. F ol l ow i n g t h e en t ry of f i n alj u dg m en t , M oore m ovedf or a new t ri al , w h i ch
w a s co n s tr u e da s am o tio n to a lte ro ra m e n dth e ju d g m e n t u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le of C ivi lP rocedure 59(e)

. H i s at t orney firsta sser t ed that he h adnev er r eceived
n ot i ce of

t h e D i st ri ct ’ s s u m m ary j u dg m en tm ot i on an d h adfai l ed t o respon d f or t h at r eason . M o ore f u rt h er c on t en ded t h at nu m erous i ssues of m ater i alfact
e x iste dw h ich p re clu d e dd ism iss a l of h is ca se . T h e d istr ict co u rt d e n ied re li e f. I tf o und no e vi de nc e o f dir e c tdi s c r i m i nat i o n a nd f u rt h er fou nd thatt he ci rcum st an t i alevi den ce M oore c i t ed d i d n otm ak e out a pri m a faci e case of i n t en t i on ald i scr i m i n ati on . I tal t erna t ivel y f ou n d that t h e D i st ri ctprovi ded l egi t i m ate , n o n di scr i m i n ator y reasons f or t erm i n ati n g M oore, an d that M oore fa ile dto d e m o n s tr a te th a t t h o s e r e a s o n s w e r e p r e te x tu a l. M o o r e tim e ly ap pe al e d. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h e a p p l i ca b l e sta n d a rdof rev i ew of th e d en i a lo f a R u l e 5 9 (e) m oti on to al t eroram end depe nds upon w het herthe di st r i c tc our tc ons i der ed m at er i al
a ttach ed to t h e m oti on w h i ch h a dn ot be en pr e v i ou sly pr ov i d ed to t h e cou rt. T emple tv. H

yrdoC h em I

n c. , 367 F
. 3d 473 , 477 ( 5th C i r. 200 4)

. B ecau se t h e court consi dered M oore’ s prof fered evi den ce, an d n on et h el ess gra n t ed su m m ary j u dg m en t , t h e app ropri ate s t an da rd of revi ew i s de no vo . I d. Su m m aryN o. 09- 10130

3 j udg m e nti s a ppr o pr i at e if no g e nui ne i s s ue o f m at eri alfac te xi s t s a nd the
m o v in gp a r tyis e n tit le dto ju d g m e n t a s a m a tt e ro f la w . F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c ). DI S CU S S I ON M o o r e c hall e nge s t w o a s pe c t s o f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r ul i ng. F i r s t , he cha l l en ges i t s r ef

u sa l t o al l ow hi m add i t i on alt i m e t o res pon d to t h e sum m ary j udg m e ntm o t i o n b e c aus e o f hi s a l l e ge d no n- r e c e i pto f t hatm o t i o n. Se c o nd, he
ar gue s t hat ge nui ne i s s ue s o f m at e r i al fac t pr e c l ude d s um m ar y j udg m e nti n t he D is tr ic t’s fa v o r . A
. E lect ronicR ece i pt of t h e D i st ri ct ’

s M ot i on M oore’ s at t orney, F ran k P
. H erna n d e z , con t en ds t h at he nev er r eceived t h e D i st ri ct ’ s m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u dg m en t
. W i t h o u t ci t i n g an y evi den ce, H erna n dez bl am es “ t h e el ect roni c f i l i n g syst em i n t h e F ederal cl erk’ s of f i ce” f or h i s al l egednon - recei pt. H ow ever, d u ri n g an ev i den t i ary h eari n g i n t h e di st ri ct
c our tand c ont r ar y t o hi s c urr entc ont ent i on o n appe a l , H er nandez c onc ede d t hat he ha d e l e c t r o ni c all y r e c e ive d t he m o t i o n, s t at i ng t hati tha d b e e n f i l e d i n a

“ spam ” f

ol der. I n l i gh tof H erna n dez’ s contradi ct ory assert i on s an d t h e l ack of
s upp o r t i ng e vi de nc e , t he a r gum e ntt hatM o o r e w as e nt i t l e d t o ade ad l i ne extensi on or ot h er r el i ef fai l s. B. Sum m ar

yJudg m e nt M o o re a rg u e s th a t n u m e ro u s m a te ria l f acti ssues exi stconcerni n g w h eth er t he D i s t r i c t ’ s pr o f

fe r e d r e as o ns f

o rt e r m i nat i o n wer e pr e t e xt ual
. H i s a r gum e nt ig n o r e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s co n c lu s io n th a t h e fa i l e dto e s ta b lis h ap r im afa c ie
c a s e o f d is c r im in a tio n . I n o r d e rto s h o w a p r im a fa c ie c a s e o f d is c r im in a to r y te r m in a tio n , a pl ai nt i f f m ustf i r st es t abl i sh t hat he ( 1) i s a m em berof a pr ot ec t ed c l as s; ( 2) w as s ubj ect ed t o a n a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e nta c t i o n; ( 3) w as q uali f i e d f o rhi s po s i t i o n; a n d( 4 ) w a s r e p la c e db ys o m e o n e o u ts id e o f th e p r o te c te dcla s s . Tu rner v. B aylor R i cha rdson Med. C t r. , 4 7 6 F .3 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 5 (5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). A s M o o r e a d m its , h isN o. 09- 10130

Bec auseMoore faile d to establi sh a prima facie case of di scrimination, we nee d not 1 re achhisargu ment that the Di strict’sp roff eredrea son s f

ortermin ationwerep retextu al. 4 repl acem en tw as, l i ke h i m , of H i sp a n ic n ati on alori gi n an d w as t h eref ore not “o u ts id e o f th e p r o te c te dcla s s .” M o o r e h a s p r e s e n te dn o e v id e n c e w h ic h w o u ld
c hal l enge t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng. 1 M o o r e a l s o a r gue s t hatt he r e i s l o ngs t and i n g u n equa lt r e at m e ntb y t he D i s t r i c to f

o t he ri ndivi dua l s i n v i o l at i o n o f Ti t l e VI I
. Sp e c i f

i c all y, he c o nt e nds th a t t h e D i stri ct did n ot raise th e p rop ort io n o f H isp a n i c em p l oy ee s on i ts
s e c u r i t ys t a f

f a s t h e Hi s p a n i cp o p u l a t i o n o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n ga r e ai n c r e a s e d
. As th e D is tr ic t p o in ts o u t, M o o r e p r o v id e s n o e v id e n c e o f th e a c t u a ld e m o g r a p h ic
c o m p o s itio n o f th e C ityo f D u n c a n v i l l e . M o r e o v e r , th is a r g u m e n t h a s litt le , if any , b e ar i ng o n whet he rM o o r e hi m s e l f s uf fe r e d un l awf

uldi s c r i m i nat i o n. F i n al l y, M oore’ s bri ef r efers t o a w rit t en gri evan ce he f i l ed ab ou tan ot h er secu ri ty off

i cer a s th e b a s is for h i s “t h eo ryof reta l i a ti on . ” H i s com p l a i n t, h ow ever, di d n otasser ta reta li a t i on cl ai m . Th ese al l egati on s are t h eref ore i m m at e r i alt o hi s c l ai m o f di s c r i m i nat i o n o n t he b as i s o f na t i o nalo r i gi n. CO NC L US I ON F o rt h e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RMED.