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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50843

Summary Calendar

MICHELLE DAVIS

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CROTHALL HEALTH CARE INC

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:06-CV-125

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michelle Davis, proceeding pro se, appeals the summary judgment

awarded Crothall Health Care, Inc. against her claims: (1) for racial

discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) under the Fair

Labor Standards Act (FLSA); and (3) that Crothall violated immigration laws.

(Davis was represented in district court. Here, after her counsel was permitted

to withdraw, her motion for appointment of counsel was DENIED.)

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 5, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50843

2

Davis provided housekeeping services on the campus of Baylor University.

She was assigned to Stacy Riddle Forum, a residential building in which Baylor’s

sororities were housed in nine “chapter suites”. 

Crothall, Davis’ employer, has a policy in its handbook which states “[f]ood

may be consumed only in the cafeteria and approved break areas”. The Stacy

Riddle Forum has neither a cafeteria nor a dedicated break room. This action

arises out of Crothall’s transfering Davis to another building after it received a

complaint, on 8 September 2005, from a sorority advisor that Davis was taking

her break, and eating lunch, in one of the rooms she was assigned to clean,

against company policy. 

Davis did not deny using the sorority common room for her lunch break.

On the other hand, she became very upset upon learning she had been assigned

to the new building. 

Shortly thereafter, Davis missed several weeks of work for health reasons.

On 27 September 2005, Crothall’s operations manager for Baylor’s campus, Vicki

Pierce, had a telephone conversation with Davis, in which Davis alleged for the

first time discrimination in her transfer to the new building. Davis claimed a

fellow housekeeper in the Stacy Riddle Building had informed her she had been

transferred because an unidentified sorority member complained she was “not

comfortable around black people”. Pierce assured Davis the only reason for her

transfer was the 8 September complaint from the sorority advisor regarding her

unauthorized use of that sorority’s suite.

Despite repeated requests from Crothall about Davis’ intentions to return

to work, Davis refused to state whether she desired to remain employed with

Crothall. On 14 October 2005, Crothall’s director of housekeeping sent Davis a

letter requesting she contact Crothall within three days about her next

scheduled shift. When Davis failed to do so, Crothall terminated her

employment.
No. 07-50843

3

Davis filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Texas Workforce

Commission on 13 October 2005. Upon receiving a right-to-sue letter, she filed

an action in Texas state court claiming: (1) race discrimination under Title VII

in her transfer from the Stacy Riddle Forum to the new housekeeping location;

(2) violations of the FLSA; and (3) immigration law violations. Crothall removed

the action to federal district court, which granted summary judgment against all

claims. Davis’ motion to reconsider was denied.

A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. E.g. Stover v. Hattiesburg Pub.

Sch. Dist., 549 F.3d 985, 991 (5th Cir. 2008). Additionally, because the district

court did not specifically reference any new materials presented in Davis’ motion

to reconsider in denying the motion, our review of the denial is for abuse of

discretion. See Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2004).

Because Davis has failed to adequately brief her claims, they could be

considered abandoned. In any event, the district court wrote a thorough and

well-reasoned opinion granting summary judgment against all claims.

Essentially for the reasons stated in that opinion, we AFFIRM the summary

judgment. In addition, we AFFIRM the denial of the motion to reconsider.