Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d 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

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10272 Su m m ar yC al endar

R AYN . JA C K S O N , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v . D r . JA M E S R O A C H , S e c r e ta r y , D e p a r tm e n t o f th e A irF o r c e , 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 N o. 7: 02- C V

- 111

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D AV IS an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Appe l l antRay Ja c ks o n a ppe al s adi s m i ssa la nd s um m ar y j udg m e nt
r eje c tin gh is d is c r im in a tio n cla im s a g a in s t h is e m p lo y e r , th e U n ite dS ta te s A ir For c e . J ac ks o n was r e m o ve d f r o m hi s po s i t i o n as a n e l e c t r o ni c s m e c hani c b y t he Ai rFo r c e . J a c k s o na p p e a l e dh i s r e m o va lt hr o ugha dm i ni s t r at ive pr o c e dur e s a nd al l eged t h at t h e A i r Force di scr i m i n ated aga i n st h i m on the basi s of race, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 9, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10272 Document: 00511023142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 10272

2 repri sal , a n d f

or being a w h i st l e- bl ow er. Th e M eri t s System s Protec t i on B oard reversed hi s r em oval an d ordered rei n st atem en t , bu tf ou n d n o di scr i m i n ati on on t h e groun ds al l eged by Ja ckson

. Jackson t h en f il ed tw o sui t s i n t h e U n i t ed St at e s di s t r i c tco ur t , o ne f o rt he e nf

o r c e m e nto f

hi s j o b r e i ns t at e m e nta nd
a n o th e ro n d is c r im in a tio n cla im s . T h e tw o su i ts w ere con soli d a ted a n d th e dist ri ct cou rt h ea rd tw o se p a ra te
m ot i on s t o di sm i ss. Th e A i r Force m oved t o di sm i ss t h e enfor cem en tcl ai m s f or la c k o f s u bje c t m a tt e rju r is d ic tio n . T h e A irF o r c e f ile dam o tio n to d is m is s , o rin t he a l t e r nat ive , m o t i o n fo rsum m ar y j udg e m e nt( “ D e fe nda nt ’ s M o t i o n” ) as t o t he di s c r i m i nat i o n c l ai m s . The di s t r i c tc o ur ti s s ue d a n o rder d i s m i s s i ng t he
en f orcem en tcl ai m s f

or l ack of

subj ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on an d gran t ed su m m ary j u dg em en tas t o al lbu tt w o of Jackson ’ s di scr i m i n ati on cl ai m s. T h e ord er s t ated th a t t h e s e r u l i n gs h a dbe en m a d e “f or re a son s th a t w i l lf oll ow bysep a ra te M e m o r and um O pi ni o n. ” H o w e ve r , b e f o r e am e m o r and um o pi ni o n was i s s ue d, th e ca s e w a s re a s s ig n e dto as e c o n dju d g e . T h e s e c o n dju d g e re c o n s id e r e da ll
a s p e c t s o f t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s m o t io n s , v a c a t e dp o r t io n s o f t h e p r e v io u s ju d g e ’s
o r d e r , a n dg r a n te dth e D e fe n d a n t’s M o tio n in its e n tir e ty
. J a c k s o n n o w a p p e a ls t h e f in a l o r d e r , a lle g in g1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e din gr ant i ng t he D e fe nda nt ’ s M o t i o n “ s ua s po nt e ” a n d c o nt r ar y t o t he pr e vi o us j u dg e’ s order an d 2) t h e new l y assi gn ed j u dg e shou l d h ave recused h i m sel f f rom t he c as e b ec ause he had o nce be en an e m pl oye e o f t he U

. S. A t t or ney’ s O f f i c e t hat i s c u rrently h an dl i n g t h i s c ase. W e af f i rm F ed. R

. C iv. 54(b) st ates: “ an y order or ot h er deci si on , h o w ever d e s i g n a t e d , t h a t a dj u d i c a t e s fe we r t h a n a l l t h e c l a i m s o r t h e r i g h t s a nd l i ab i l i t i e s o f

fe w e rt han al lt he pa r t i e s do e s no te nd t he a c t i o n a s to a ny o f t he
c l ai m s o rpa r t i e s a nd m ayb e r e vi s e d a ta ny t i m e b e f o r e t he ent r y o f

aj udg m e nt adj u di cat i n g al lthe cl ai m s and al lt h e parti es’ri gh t s and l i abil i t i es. ” Th e order byt he f i r s tj udg e w as no taf i nalj udg m e nta nd t hus , c o ul d b e r e vi s e d byt he
se c ond j udge. I n addi t i on, t he den i a lo f a m ot i on f ors um m ar y j udgm enti s an Case: 09-10272 Document: 00511023142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 10272

3 i nt e r l ocuto r y o r de r , w hi c h t he t r i alc o ur tm ayr e c o ns i de ra nd r e ve r s e f o ra ny
r eas on i tdee m s suf f i c i en t, e ve n i n t he abs enc e o f new ev i denc e oran in te r v e n in gch a n g e in o rcla r i f i c a t i o n o f th e s u b s ta n tiv e la w . La ve s perev. Ni ag ara Mach

. & T

oolW orks, I n c. , 910 F. 2d 167, 185 (5th C i r . 199 0)

. I tw as
w i t hi n t he ne w l y as s i gne d j udg e ’ s po w e r t o c o ns i de rt he D e fe nda nt ’ s M o t i o n s ua spon t e andvac at e t he f i r s tj udg e ’ s o r de r . The c o ur tdi d no ta bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n. Bon Ai rHo t e l, I

nc . v . Ti m e , I

nc ., 4 2 6 F .2 d8 5 8 , 8 6 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 0 ) ; seealso F e r n a n d e z - Mo n t e s v . A ll ie dP ilo ts A s s ’n , 987 F. 2d 278, 284 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) (ci t ati on om i t t ed)(“ T h e revi si t ati on by the court of [ an ] earl i er or der .

. . w as not
erro rb e c aus e . . . ac o ur tm ayc o r r e c ti t s o w n e r r o r s . The fac tt hat[t he j u dg e]
w as notc or r ec t i ng hi s ow n e rror, b utt hatof anot herj udge w ho i ni t i al l y had be e n i n c har ge o f

t he c as e , i s no m o m e nt
. ” )

. Bec aus e J ac ks o n ha d r ai s e d no
c o nt e nt i o n c o nc e r ni ng t he m e r i t s o f t he j udg m e nt , a ny s uc h a r gum e nti s w aive d. Ja c ks o n’ s r e c us al c l ai m i s r ai s e d f o r t he f i r s t t i m e o n ap pea l

. A ppe l l ant
ar gue s t hatb e cau se of t he “ ne w t r i alj udg e ’ s v i r t uall y i m m e di at e a nd preem ptory r u l i n g di sm i ssi n g t h e case, ” h e ha d “no w arn i n g” t h at s u ch a m ot i on t o r ec use w as c al l ed f or . App el l antar gues t hatt he j udge de m ons t r at ed a “ c l ear ap pea ran ce of

i m propri et y” becau se th e j u dg e “ sum m ari l y di sm i ssed t h e case”
a n dis afo r m e re m p lo y e e o f t h e U

. S

. A t t o r n e y ’s O ff ic e th a th a n d le dJ a c k s o n ’s
c a s e . J a c k s o n h a d a m p le tim e to r a is e th e re c u s a l is s u e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. H is
c as e w as as si gned t o t he new j udge o vera m ont h bef or e t he j udge ent er ed a f i nal order. In ad di t i on , Jack son f i l ed a m ot i on seeki n g reconsi derati on of t h e di st ri ct court’ s f

i n alorder as w el las an a m en ded m ot i on . Th ese m ot i on s w ere not de ni e du n t i ls e v e n mo n t h s l a t e r . J a c k s o n fa i l e dt o s e e k r e c u s a la ta n yp o i nt du ri n g t h i s t i m e. O n app eal , he of fers n o expl an ati on f or hi s f ai l u re t o seek recusalearl i er, an d h e ha s not al l eged excepti on alci rcum st an ces w h y t h i s c ou rt
s h o u ldc o n s id e rt h e r e c u s a l is s u e fo rt h e fir s t t im e o n a p p e a l. Se e Cl ay v . Al le n, 2 4 2 F .3 d6 7 9 , 6 8 1 ( 5 t h C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). F o rt h e fo r e g o in gr e a s o n s , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s j u dg m en ti s AF FI RM ED

. Case: 09-10272 Document: 00511023142 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2010