FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

March 27, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 02-41209

Summary Calendar

____________________

ROLISHA GOINS

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

HITCHCOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; JOSIE M ORR,

Individually and as President of the Board of Education for 

Hitchcock Independent School District; RON MEIER,

Individually and as Vice President of the Board of Education

for Hitchcock Independent School District; DORIS

SCURRY-KENNEDY, As an individual and as Secretary for the

Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School 

District; PAT TURNER, As an individual and as a Member of

the Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School

District; RICKY BOND, As an Individual and as a Member of

the Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School

District; SHAWN KADLECEK, As an Individual and as a Member

of the Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School

District; RUTH A KANE, As an Individual and as

Superintendent; BILL BANKS, Individually and as former

Superintendent of Hitchcock Independent School District

Defendants - Appellees

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. G-01-CV-498

_________________________________________________________________

Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

2

PER CURIAM:*

This case arises from a claim of sex discrimination

allegedly suffered by Plaintiff-Appellant Rolisha Goins while

serving as a women’s basketball and volleyball coach for

Defendant-Appellee Hitchcock Independent School District

(“H.I.S.D.”). Although separate from another sex discrimination

suit brought by Goins against H.I.S.D. in 1998, this case relates

to a settlement agreement resulting from the 1998 lawsuit and

involves allegations that H.I.S.D., along with the individual

defendants, did not faithfully execute Goins’s employment

contract in the spirit of the settlement agreement.

On appeal, Goins contends that the district court erred in

numerous ways: (1) in failing to enforce its instructions in an

oral hearing; (2) in failing to follow its own scheduling

instructions in another hearing; (3) in issuing a docket control

order; (4) in denying her request for special master, ignoring

her request to amend the complaint, and granting H.I.S.D.’s

Partial Motion to Dismiss; (5) in denying her Motion for

Reconsideration; (6) in striking her Motion to Amend; (7) in

denying her Motion to Recuse; (8) in granting H.I.S.D.’s Motion

for Summary Judgment and denying her Motions for Reconsideration
3

and for Leave to Supplement the Motion to Amend the Complaint;

and (9) in granting judgment for H.I.S.D. 

The district court extensively reviewed each of the issues

presented on appeal and adequately responded to each one in kind,

even in situations where Defendants’ motions were technically

unopposed due to Goins’s inability to respond to them. Based on

our review of the record, we conclude that Goins cannot establish 

reversible error. Therefore, the judgment of the district court

is

AFFIRMED.