# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 40611 Summary Calendar

**____________ David Edward Ellis,** 
Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Schneider National Carriers, Incorporated,**
Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:21

- CV

- 25

**__________________________ ____**  Before **Davis, Ho**  **,** and **Ramirez ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****

Plaintiff

- Appellant, David Edward Ellis , proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , appeals the district court’s judgment dismiss ing his claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) , and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Defendant

- Appellee, Schneider National Carriers, Inc. (“Schneider”)

. W e **AFFIRM.**

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 19, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-40611 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2024No. 23

- 40611

2 I.

Schneider employed Ellis as a long

- haul trucker for approximately five months from August 2019 until January 2020. His duties included picking up and delivering freight, subject to the supervision of his fleet manager, Jorge Bustamante, and his dispatcher, Victoria Solares. I n October 2019 , Ellis sent an email to a manager complaining about Solares because she required that he communicate with h er by telephone instead of through a messaging app lication program, which Ellis preferred

. Ellis further suggested that Solares requ ired him to communicat e in that way because Solares was interested in him romantically. Later in the month , Ellis sent an email to four other colleagues complaining about Solares

. The email includ ed inappropriate sexual references

. On November 22, 2019, Schneider placed Ellis on a p erformance improvemen t p lan (“PIP”) due to his inappropriate communications with his colleagues and supervisors

. Ellis was told that he needed to adhere to Schneider ’ s policy of respect for all fellow employees and to “ work on effective performance of the core competency of communication. ” Ellis was informed that fellow employees who received his email found it offensive due to inappropriate sexual references. Ellis si gned the PIP and did not dispute the information in it

. The PIP advis ed Ellis that he could be terminated for engaging in similar conduct in the future

. However, Ellis did not cease sending offensive emails

. On December 24, 2019, and January 13, 2020, E llis sent offensive emails to Bustamante and Solares. On January 14, 2020, Schneider terminated Ellis’ s employment. In March 2021, Ellis , proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , sued Schneider , as well as Bustamante and Solares. Ellis assert ed claims of disability , age, race , and religious discrimination , as well as retaliation , under Title VII , the ADEA, and the ADA

. Bustamente , Solares, and Schneider Case: 23-40611 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2024No. 23

- 40611

3 moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The distri ct court granted Bustamante and Solares ’ s motion, dismissing them as defendants

. The district court granted Schneider’s motion in part and denied it in part , dismissing all but Ellis’ s claim s under Title VII for religious discrimination and retaliation fo r requesting a religious accommodation

. Schneider thereafter moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Ellis’ s re maining claim s

. The district court granted Schneider’s motion , and Ellis filed a timely notice of appeal.

II.

In its Rule 12(b)(6) and summary

- judgment rulings , the district court provided a thorough and detailed analysis of each of Ellis’ s claims, explaining the elements he needed to establish and why he failed to state a claim or demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment

. Specifically, the court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6): (1) Ellis’ s ADA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) his Title VII racial discrimination claims because he failed to allege that any adve rse employment decisions were differentially applied to him; (3) three of his Title VII retaliation claims because he did not allege that he ever communicated his complaints to his managers nor did he plausibly allege the required causal connection; and (4 ) his ADEA claim because he failed to allege that any adverse employment decisions were differentially applied to him. As to his claims under Title VII for religious discrimination, the district

court granted summary judgment in favor of Schneider, determ in ing that Ellis’ s disparate treatment and failure

- to

- accommodate claims failed because Ellis produced no evidence satisfy ing the prima facie requirements. The court additionally determined that Ellis’ s Title VII retaliation claims could not survive summa ry judgment because there was no ev idence that Case: 23-40611 Document: 52-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2024No. 23

- 40611

4 Schneider’s legitimate, non

- retaliatory reason for terminating him

— his repeated offensive emails to his colleagues and supervisors

— was merely pretext for unlawful retaliation.

Ellis’ s near incoherent appella te br ief makes no argument about any of the claims dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). As to his religious discrimination and retaliation claims, Ellis does not challenge the district court’s determination that Ellis produced no ev idence sufficient to survive summary judgment. 1 Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, pro se parties must still brief the issues in order to preserve them for appellate consideration. 2
Because Ellis fails to identify any error in the district court’s judgment dismissing his claims, it “ is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment .” 3

B ased on the foregoing , the judgment of the district court is
**AFFIRMED.**

**_____________________**

1 Throughout his brief, Ellis includes vile and offensive language such that the Court, on its own motion, would be warranted in striking his brief. Ellis is **warned** that if any future filings in this Court contain similar language, sanctions will be imposed.

2 See Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)

.

3 Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Case: 23-40611 Document: 52-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/19/2024