Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt 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- 60166 Su m m ar y Cal endar

S A N D R AMA N G U M P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. CA T O C OR P OR AT I ON 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 fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

3: 06- C V

- 701

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Pl ai nt i f f

- appel l antSandra M angum , ac t i ng pro se , fil e dth is act i onagainst herf or m erem pl oye r , def

endant

- appell eeC at o C orp ora ti on ( “C a to”) , all egi ng t hat
an el aborate conspir acy exi st ed t o di scr i m i n ate aga i n st h er. C ato ter m i n ated M a n g u m ’ s e m p lo y m e n t b a s e d o n its b e lie f th a t M a n g u m c a s h e d a fo r g e d p a y r o ll
c he c k a tK r o ge rCom pa ny ( “ K r o ge r” )

. Fo l l o w i ng he rt e r m i nat i o n, M ang um al l eged cl ai m s of

hosti l e w ork en vi ronm e nt , di sparate t reat m en t , an d ret al i ati on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60166

2 in v io la tio n o f

T i t l e V I I o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 . U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e , et. seq . , as w el l as st ate l aw cl ai m s f or m al i ci ou s prosecuti on , fal se arr est , abu se of process, gross neg l i gen ce, an d i n t en t i on ali n f l i ct i on of

e m o t i on aldi st ress against C a to
. M angu m a l s o f i l e d s ui ta ga i ns tK r o ge ra r i s i ng o uto f t he c he c k c as hi ng i nci dentf

orbr eac h of

c ont r ac t , br eac h of

t he du t y of

good fai t h and fai rdeal i ng, ne gl i ge nc e / gr o s s ne gl i ge nc e , a nd m al i c i o us pr o s e c ut i o n . In a t h orough M em oran du m O pi n i on an d O rder, t h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed C ato’ s m ot i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en ta n d rej ect ed allof M an gu m ’ s c l ai m s f

i l ed aga i n st C ato. T h e di st ri ct court al so gran t ed s u m m ary j u dg m en t f or m o st of M angum ’ s c l ai m s agai nstK r oge r . The di st r i c tc our t , how eve r , r es erved f ort r i al t h e breach of

t h e du t y of

good fai t h an d fai r deal i n ga n d n egl i gen ce/ gross
n egl i gen ce c l ai m s M an gu m fi l ed aga i n stK roger. In a j u ry tri alon these cl ai m s, t h e j u ry returned a tak e n ot h i n g verdi ctin favor of K roger. Foll ow i n g en t ry of a f i n alj u dg m en t , M an gu m t i m el y ap pea l ed. In t h i s ap pea l , M an gu m d oes not
a r g u e th a t th e d is tr ic t co u r t er r e d in d is m is s in g K r o g e r . T h e r e fo r e , w e o n ly revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof C ato. Fo rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b yt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti n i t s c a r e f u lM e m o r a n dum O p i n i on an d O rd er on J u n e 2 0 , 20 0 8 , w e A F F IR M the j u d gm en t of distri ct cou rt.