### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-30422 Summary Calendar

INGRID CYLESTE WINSLOW-HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-CV-3588

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ingrid Cyleste Winslow-Harri s b r o u gh t c l ai m s o f r e t al i a t o ry discharge and employment discrimination a g ai n s t th e P o s t m a s t e r General of the United States Postal Service. The district court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim of retaliatory discharge and granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the claim of employment discrimination. Winslow-Harris appeals the judgment on both claims. We AFFIRM. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 24 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-30422 Document: 00512031159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2012No. 12-30422

On h e r f

i r s t claim of retaliatory discharge, the district court held that Winslow-Harris had not exhausted her administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Thus, the district court properly dismissed this claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pacheco v. Mineta , 448 F.3d 783, 788 (5th Cir. 2006). Winslow-Harris’s second claim of discrimination based on h er race is analyzed using th e t r a di t i o n al b u r d e n -shifting rules of McDonnell Douglas Corp.

v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case that she has suffered discrimination based on rac e . Frank v. Xerox Corp. , 347 F.3d 130, 1 3 7 (5th Cir. 2003). If that case is made, the burden shifts to the d e f e n dant to “articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for th e questioned employment action.” Id. If such a reason is given, “the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence that the defendant’s articulated reason is merely a pretext for discrimination.” Id. A s s u m i n g Wi n s l o w - H arri s e s t ab lished her prima facie case, the Defen d a n t articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for discharging WinslowHarris during her probationary period of employment. Winslow-Harris filed no opposit i o n to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The record contains no evidence that t h e D e f e ndant’s stated reasons are pretextual. “‘A complete failure of proof concerning an esse n t i al element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all o t h e r facts immaterial’ and ‘mandates the entry of summary judgment’ for the moving party.” United States ex rel. Farmer

v. City of Houston , 523 F.3d 333, 337 (5 t h Cir. 2008) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)). The claim based on racial discrimination fails because there was no evidence produced suggesting pretext. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-30422 Document: 00512031159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2012