United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-20104

____________

Gyanendra K. Patra, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Schlumberger Technology Corporation, 

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CV-2722

______________________________

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Gyanendra Patra, pro se, sued his former employer and asserted 

claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition to many bizarre statements, including 

that his supervisor pressured him to begin a sexual relationship with his 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 5, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-20104 Document: 31-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2024
No. 24-20104

2

subordinate, his case is procedurally lacking and has no merit. The district 

court dismissed the case. Patra now appeals that judgment. We AFFIRM.

I.

Patra filed a complaint in the district court asserting several employment claims. The sprawling complaint is difficult to decipher but seemingly 

alleges that the defendant-appellee, Schlumberger, discriminated against Patra because of his Indian descent that resulted in his wrongful termination. 

Schlumberger moved to dismiss Patra’s complaint. In a one-page order, the 

district judge granted Schlumberger’s motion to dismiss. 

Over 100 days later, Patra filed an amended complaint. Schlumberger 

moved to dismiss or strike because the court closed and terminated the matter after granting the motion to dismiss and because Patra did not seek leave 

of the district court nor consent of Schlumberger. The district court granted 

the motion in another one-page order. 

II.

We review a motion to strike for abuse of discretion. Cambridge Toxicology Grp., Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169, 178 (5th Cir. 2007). 1

III.

On appeal, Patra focuses on how the district court erred on the merits. 

What he fails to mention dooms his appeal under any standard of review. Patra filed his amended complaint in a closed case. He did not move to alter, 

amend, or vacate the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59 or 60, nor did he properly file his amended complaint pursuant to Federal 

_____________________

1 The district court’s order is stylized as an order granting Schlumberger’s Motion 

to Dismiss/Strike. Schlumberger’s motion is best treated as a motion to strike because the 

case was already dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Case: 24-20104 Document: 31-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2024
No. 24-20104

3

Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The case never reopened, and the district court 

was correct to strike Patra’s amended complaint.

This would not be a problem if Patra was appealing the dismissal of his 

original complaint. But Patra is only appealing the district court order striking or dismissing his amended complaint. This Court cannot review the dismissal of Patra’s original complaint. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a). 

Patra also contends that alleged issues with docket entries entitle him 

to relief. This argument has no merit, and, even if it did, Patra has no colorable argument that it was material.

IV.

In sum, Patra improperly filed his amended complaint in a closed case, 

and the judgment of the district court is, therefore, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-20104 Document: 31-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/05/2024