United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50173

Summary Calendar

____________

Essie R. McDaniel Morris, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Temple Independent School District, Benefits Dept. - 

David McCauley - Dir. of Personnel; Temple I.S.D., 

Supt. of Temple Texas Schools; Susan Joyce Dasher; 

Nelson D. Taylor, Attorney, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:21-CV-1378 

______________________________

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiff–Appellant Essie R. McDaniel Morris, proceeding pro se, 

appeals the district court’s dismissal of her suit against DefendantsAppellees Temple Independent School District (“TISD”), Susan Joyce 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50173 Document: 00516889381 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2023
No. 23-50173

2

Dasher, and Nelson D. Taylor, for claims of discriminatory termination of 

employment under Title VII, breach of contract, and fraud relating to her 

Teacher Services Record.1 Morris worked at TISD from 1975-1980 until the 

TISD Board of Trustees declined to renew her annual contract in 1980. 

Morris filed this action in response on December 29, 2021. TISD filed a 

motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Morris 

filed a motion for summary judgment. The district judge referred the motions

to a magistrate judge, who recommended dismissing all of Morris’s claims as 

barred by the statute of limitations and denying Morris’s motion for summary 

judgment as moot. Morris did not timely file written objections to the 

proposed findings or recommendations and the district court adopted the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, dismissing the case. 

Generally, we review a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss 

for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de 

novo. See NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 393 (5th Cir. 2015) 

(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). However, we 

apply the plain error standard when the complaining party fails to object to a 

report and recommendation of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) after having been “served with notice that such consequences 

will result from a failure to object.” Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 

F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other 

grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Here, Morris was warned that failure to file 

written objections within 14 days from her receipt of the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation would bar her from appellate review of 

_____________________

1 Morris’s civil cover sheet also indicated that the nature of the suit includes 

numerous other claims. The district court did not address these additional actions, as they 

were not discussed in Morris’s complaint. Morris does not address any of these additional 

claims on appeal. This Court will not address them.

Case: 23-50173 Document: 00516889381 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2023
No. 23-50173

3

unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by 

the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. She did not file timely 

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and the 

district court did not conduct a de novo review of the record. As a result, the 

factual findings and legal conclusions adopted by the district court are 

reviewed for plain error. See id. 

Review of the record and of Morris’s briefs in this appeal show no 

error in the district court’s conclusion that her suit was time barred. 

Regardless of whether the applicable statute of limitations is 90 days or 180 

days to bring a claim of racial discrimination or retaliation under Title VII, or 

four years for state contract or fraud claims for an employment relationship, 

Morris’s employment with TISD ended May 30, 1980, placing all her claims 

well beyond any applicable statute of limitations. Insofar as Morris argues 

that this suit is timely because of newly acquired information, experiences, 

and observations, she fails to allege with particularity to what information she 

is referring to, or how this new information tolls the statute of limitations

applicable to her case. 

Because the district court properly granted TISD’s motion to dismiss 

and denied Morris’s motion for summary judgment as moot, we AFFIRM 

the district court’s judgment.

Case: 23-50173 Document: 00516889381 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/11/2023