IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50677

Summary Calendar

DWIGHT H. MILES, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, 

 Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CV-130

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Dwight Miles brought retaliation claims against his former 

employer, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Miles appeals the 

summary judgment in favor of the DMV. We AFFIRM.

 

* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth 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 Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 10, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50677 Document: 00515028671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2019
No. 18-50677

2

I.

Miles provided customer service on behalf of the DMV as a lead worker. 

Following a 2010 agency reorganization, Miles was demoted to facilitator in 

2014. In 2014, alleging that he was improperly demoted, Miles filed a 

discrimination lawsuit against the DMV. In 2015, the district court dismissed 

the discrimination lawsuit for failure to state a claim. Miles, proceeding pro 

se, filed a second lawsuit in 2018, which is now on appeal before us. Miles 

alleges that because of his previous lawsuit, the DMV retaliated against him

by denying him the service desk manager position and ultimately terminating 

him in June of 2016. He also alleges that the DMV violated his constitutional 

right to free speech, due process, and equal protection. 

A magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the district court 

grant summary judgment in the DMV’s favor because Miles failed to establish 

a prima facie case for retaliation. Specifically, the magistrate judge observed

that Miles failed to present any evidence of a causal connection between the 

2014 lawsuit and his termination and failure to be considered for the service 

desk manager position. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation and granted summary judgment on all claims in 

the DMV’s favor. 

II.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and apply the 

same standard as the district court. Smith v. Reg’l Transit Auth., 827 F.3d 412, 

417 (5th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate, “if the movant shows 

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. If a reasonable 

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, then there is a genuine 

 Case: 18-50677 Document: 00515028671 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2019
No. 18-50677

3

dispute of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242-43, 

106 S. Ct. 2505, 2507, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). 

Once the moving party has shown there is an absence of evidence to 

support the non-moving party's claims, the non-moving party must provide 

specific facts showing a genuine factual issue for trial. Renwick v. PNK Lake 

Charles, LLC, 901 F.3d 605, 611 (5th Cir. 2018). The non-moving party must 

“identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the manner in which that 

evidence supports that party's claim.” Johnson v. Deep E. Texas Reg'l Narcotics 

Trafficking Task Force, 379 F.3d 293, 301 (5th Cir. 2004). It cannot simply rest 

on the mere allegations of its pleadings. Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 

371 (5th Cir. 2010). “[T]he evidence should be viewed in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party . . . .” Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, 

L.P., 917 F.3d 369, 378 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gary v. Powers, 673 F.3d 352, 

354 (5th Cir. 2012)). 

III.

To establish a retaliation claim under Title VII, an employee must show: 

(1) the employee engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) the employer 

took adverse employment action against the employee; and (3) a causal 

connection exists between that protected activity and the adverse employment 

action. Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, LLC, 915 F.3d 320, 327–28 (5th Cir. 

2019). If the employee does not have direct evidence of retaliation, he may rely 

on circumstantial evidence under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting 

framework to support his retaliation claim. See id.; see also Montemayor v. City 

of San Antonio, 276 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2001). First, the employee must 

establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation. Byers v. Dallas Morning 

News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 427 (5th Cir. 2000). Then, the employer may 

articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment 

 Case: 18-50677 Document: 00515028671 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2019
No. 18-50677

4

action. Id. The burden shifts back to the employee to show that the employer’s

explanation is a pretext for unlawful retaliation. Id.

The district court correctly determined that Miles did not establish a 

prima facie case of retaliation. Miles fails to connect the denial of the service 

desk manager position and the ultimate termination to his filing of the 2014 

lawsuit. The DMV has maintained that Miles was fired for cause following 

multiple violations of the employee handbook. Specifically, the DMV provided 

evidence that Miles made false statements to and about his coworkers, 

misreported a state-wide outage that led to multiple employees working over 

a weekend, had overall poor job performance, and did not improve even after 

being placed on a corrective action plan. Miles failed to provide summary 

judgment evidence to raise a fact issue on this point. 

Furthermore, the timing of the events does not support the claim. Nearly 

10 months elapsed between the filing of Miles’ 2014 discrimination lawsuit and 

his unsuccessful application for the managerial position, and nearly 18 months 

elapsed between the lawsuit and his termination. See Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. 

Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273 (2001); Raggs v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 278 F.3d 

463, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2002) (a five-month laps did not create a causal 

connection between the lawsuit and the alleged retaliatory act). Accordingly, 

Miles’ retaliation claim cannot survive summary judgment. AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-50677 Document: 00515028671 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/10/2019