Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 50843 S u m m ary C al en da r
M I CH EL LE D AV I S P l a i n tiff-A p p ell a n t v. CROT HALL HEALT H CARE I NC 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 f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 6: 06- C V

- 125

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * M i c hel l e D avi s, pr oceedi ng pro se , a ppe al s t he s um m ary j udg m e nt
aw ar ded Croth a l lH ealt h C ar e, I nc. agai nstherc l ai m s: ( 1) f orr ac i al d is c r im in a tio n u n d e rT itle V II o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 ; (2 ) u n d e rth e F a ir L abor S t an da rds A ct(FL S A) ; a n d ( 3) tha tC rot h al lvi ol ated i m m i grati on l aw s. (D avis w as represented i n di st ri ctcourt
. H ere, af t er her c ou n selw as perm i t t ed to w ith d r a w , h e rm o tio n fo ra p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l w a s D E N IE D .) United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 50843

2 D avi s pro vi ded hous ekee pi ng s e rvic e s o n t he c am pus o f B ayl orU niver sit y. S h ew a s a s s i g n e dt o S t a c yR i d d l e F o r u m , ar e s i d e n t i a lb u i l d i n gi n w h i c h B a y l o r ’s
s o r o r itie s w e r e h o u s e dinn in e “c h a p te rs u ite s ”. C rot h al l , D avis ’em pl oyer, h as a pol i cy i n i t s h an db ook w h i ch st ates “ [f ] ood
m a ybe consu m ed on l y i n t h e cafet eri a an d ap provedbreak a reas”

. Th e Stacy R i dd l e F orum ha s nei t h er a c afet eri a n or a dedi cat ed break room . Th i s act i on ar i s e s o uto f Cro t hall ’ s t r ans fe r i ng D av i s t o ano t he r buil di ng af t e r i tr e c e ive d a
c o m pl ai nt , o n 8 Se pt e m be r2 00 5, f r o m as o r o r i t y ad vi s o rt hatD av i s w as t ak i ng he rb r e ak , a nd e at i ng l u n c h, i n o ne o f t he r o o m s s he w as a s s i gne d t o c l e an, a g a in s t c o m p a n yp o lic y . D av i s di d no tde ny us i ng t he s o r o r i t y c o m m o n r o o m fo rherl unc h b r e ak
. O n t h e ot h er han d, she becam e very up setup on l earn i n g she h adbeen assi gn ed to th e n e w b u ild in g . S h ort l y t h ereaf

t er, D avis m i ssed severalw eeks of w ork f or heal t h reasons. O n 2 7 Septem ber 200 5, C rot h al l ’ s operat i on s m an ager f or Bayl o r ’ s c am pus , Vi c ki Pi e r c e , ha d at e l e pho ne c o nve r s at i o n w i t h Davi s , i n whi c h Davi s a l l e ge d f o rt he f i r s tt i m e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n h e r t r a n s fe r t o t h e n e w b u i l d i n g . Da v i s c l a i m e d a fel l ow hou sekeep er i n t h e Stacy R i dd l e B u i l di n g h ad i n f orm ed h er s h e ha d been t ran sferred because an un i den t i f i ed sororit y m em ber com pl ai n ed sh e w as “ n ot
com f ort able arou n d black people”

. Pier ce ass u red D avis the on l y reason f or her t ran sfer w as t h e 8 S eptem ber com pl ai n tf rom t h e sor orit y ad vi sor regardi n g h er u n au t h ori zed u se of

t h at s ororit y’ s s u i t e. D espi t e repeated requests f rom C rot h al l abou t D avis ’ i n t en t i on s t o ret u rn to w ork , D a vis refu sed to state w h eth er sh e d esiredto rem a i n em p l oy edw i th C rot h al l
. O n 1 4 O ct ober 2 005 , C rot h al l ’ s di rect or of hou sekeep i n g sent D avis a l et t err eques t i ng s he c ont ac tC r ot hal lw i t hi n t hre e day s ab ou t h ernext schedu l ed s h ift. W h en D avis fai l ed to do so, C rot h al lt erm i n ated her
em p l oy m en t.N o. 07- 50843

3 D av is fil ed a C h arge of D i scr i m i n ati on w i t h t h e T exas W orkf orce C om m i ssi on on 13 O ct ober 200 5. U pon rec eivi n g a ri gh t
- t o- sue l et t er, she f i l ed
a n actioni n T ex a s state cou rt claim i n g: (1) ra ce d i scrim i n a ti on u n d er T i tl e V II i n he rt r ans fe rf

r o m t he St ac y Ri ddl e F o r um t o t he ne w ho us e ke e pi ng l o c at i o n; ( 2) vi ol ati on s of

t h e F L S A ; an d ( 3) i m m i grati on law v i ol ati on s. C rot h al lrem oved th e a c tio n to fe d e r a l d is tr ic t co u r t, w h ic h g r a n te ds u m m a r yju d g m e n t a g a in s t a ll
c l ai m s . Davi s ’m o t i o n t o r e c o ns i de rw as de ni e d. A su m m ary j udg m e nti s r e vi e w e d de no vo . E
. g. St ov e rv. Hat t i e s burg Pu b. S ch
. D ist. , 549 F
. 3d 985 , 991 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. A dd i t i on al ly, becau se th e di st ri ct court di d n otspecif

i cal l y ref

erence an y n ew m ater i al s presented i n D avis ’m ot i on t o rec on si der i n den yi n g t h e m o tion , o u r revi ew of t h e den i ali s f

or abu se of d is c r e tio n . S ee T

emple tv. H

yd roCh em I

n c. , 3 6 7 F .3d4 7 3 , 4 7 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). B ec ause D avi s has fai l ed t o a dequat ely br i ef herc l ai m s, t hey c oul d be
c o ns i de r e d aba ndo ne d. I n a ny e ve nt , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tw r o t e at ho r o ugha nd
w el l

- reasonedopi n ion g ra n t i n g sum m ary j u dg m en tagainstal lcl ai m s. E ssenti al l y f

or th e reasons st ated i n t h at opi n i on , w e A F F IR M t h e sum m ary j u dg m en t
. I nadd i t i on , w e A F F IR M t h e den i alof the m ot i on t o rec on si der.