* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

May 30, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

Summary Calendar

No. 02-21227

_______________________

DWYN LLORENCE DUPREE; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

DWYN LLORENCE DUPREE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ULTRAMAR DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORP.; SAM TIOLETTE; SANDRA CONTRERAS;

UDS SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

H-02-CV-1424

_________________________________________________________________

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pro se appellant Dwyn Llorence Dupree brought claims

against Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corp.; Sam Tiolette; Sandra1 Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation is a misnomer for UDS

Services, Inc. Contreras was never properly served with the

complaint. Tiolette was served with the complaint and testified at

the arbitration. Tiolette never answered the complaint. Dupree’s

complaint, however, even most liberally construed, has not sought

any relief against Tiolette. P erez v. United States

, 312 F.3d 191,

194-95 (5th Cir. 2002) (construing a pro se plaintiff's pleadings

liberally).

2 Contrer as; UDS Services, Inc. 1 (collectively “UDS”) under the

Americans wit h Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1990. UDS filed a motion to compel arbitration

pursuant to a signed arbitration agreement between UDS and Dupree.

Dupree did not challenge the motion to compel arbitration (in fact

he agreed to arbitration). The arbitrator found in favor of UDS on

all of Dupree’s claims. Following the arbitration, but prior to

UDS’s filing a motion to confirm the arbitration award, Dupree

filed a motion for a jury trial and his request for trial de novo.

The district court denied Dupree’s motions on October 2 3, 2002.

That same day, UDS filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award.

Dupree did not file an opposition to UDS’s motion and the district

court entered an order confirming the arbitration award on November

13, 2002. On appeal, Dupree challenges the district court’s denial

of his motion for jury trial and his motion for trial de novo.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Dupree makes three arguments as to why the district court

erred in denying his motion for jury trial and trial de novo: (1)

arbitration of his Title VII and ADA claims violates his right to3

a jury trial, (2) he is entitled a new trial under 28 U.S.C. § 657

(2000), and (3) the arbitrator was wrong in finding in favor of UDS

and the award was tainted by misconduct. Each of these arguments

is without merit.

As a condition of his employment wit h UDS, Dupree

executed an arbitration agreement with UDS that cover s his Title

VII and ADA claims. This court has previously held that

arbitration provisions between employers and employees are

enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. M iller v. Pub.

Storage Mgmt., Inc.

, 121 F.3d 215, 218 (5th Cir. 1997).

Furthermore, we have held that claims under Title VII and the ADA

are arbitrable. I d. (ADA claims); Rojas v. TK Communications,

Inc.

, 87 F.3d 745, 747 (5th Cir. 1996) (Title VII claims).

Addit ionally, when parties resolve a dispute pursuant to a valid

arbitration agreement, they waive their right to a judicial forum

and a jury trial. A m. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Orr

, 294 F.3d 702,

711 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 871 (2003).

Furthermore, Dupree’s argument that he is entitled to a

trial de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 657 is meri tless. Section 657

applies only to arbitration s conducted as part of a courtadministrated alternative dispute resolution program authorized

under Chapter 44 of T itle 28 (28 U.S.C. §§ 651-657). 28 U.S.C. §

657 (2000). It does not apply to arbitrations conducted, like that4

in the instant case, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. 28

U.S.C. § 651(e) (2000).

Finally, Dupree challenges the fairness of the

arbitration proceeding. “Because a party who has not agreed to

arbitrate n ormally has a right to seek a court's decision on the

merits of his or her dispute with another person, the party's

agreement to arbitrate that matter under the FAA is a

relinquishment of much of that right's practical value.” W illiams

v. CIGNA Fin. Advisors Inc.

, 197 F.3d 752, 757 (5th Cir. 1999). A

party can still ask a court to review the arbitrator's decision,

but the court will set aside that decision only in the very unusual

circumstances where an award is procured by fraud, undue means, or

corruption, or is in manife st disregard of the law. I d. Dupree

claims that the arbitrator’s decision is flawed for all of these

reasons. Dupree’s arguments are based solely upon allegation and

conjecture. There is nothing in the record to support any of

Dupree’s claims. Thus, finding no error in the district court’s

decision we AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.