* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10120

Summary Calendar

ARTHUR WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

G.T.E. COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS CORP.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:98-CV-2720)

July 10, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Arthur Williams appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of GTE Communicatio ns Systems with respect to

Williams’s claim of retaliatory terminat ion. Williams failed to

file a timely notice o f appeal of the judgment but did timely

appeal the district co urt’s denial of Williams’s post-judgment

motions for reconsideration. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction

over this appeal except for the limited purpose of determining

whether the district court abused its discretion in denying those2

motions. See Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc. , 151 F.3d

465, 470 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1005 (1999).

GTE Communications Systems d/b/a GTE Supply fired Williams on

July 16, 1998, after Williams allegedly destroyed an entire day’s

shipping information which was used for the tracking of purchases

by GTE Supply’s c ustomers. Williams claims that his termination

was in retaliation for filing racial discrimination claims with the

EEOC.

The trial court found that Williams failed to establish a

prima facie case of retaliation because he offered no evidence

other than his subjective belief that the relevant decisionmakers

had knowledge of the EEOC charges when he was terminated. Thus,

Williams failed to establish a causal connection be tween his

protected activity and the adverse employment action. See Chaney

v. New Orleans Public Facility Management, Inc.

, 179 F.3d 164, 168

(5th Cir. 1999); Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP

, 190 F.3d

398, 407-08 (5th Cir. 1999).

Alternatively, the trial court found that GTE Sup ply

terminated Williams only after an investigation of complaints by

other employees who reported that Williams had intentionally erased

the shi pping information from a computer disk. Because Williams

presented no evidence that GTE Supply’s reason for termination was

pretextual, summary judgment was proper on this basis as well. S ee

Shackelford

, 190 F.3d at 408; Walton v. Bisco Indus., Inc.

, 119

F.3d 368, 370 (5th Cir. 1997).3

On appeal, Williams presents no arguments related to the

merits of his case but argues only that the district court should

have asserted personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Personal

jurisdiction, however, was asserted over the defendant and in fact

has never been challenged by the defendant. Because Williams

failed to raise a ny substantive issue regarding the dismissal of

his retaliation claim, such issues may be deemed waived. S ee

Huckabay v. Moore , 142 F.2d 233, 238 n.2 (5th Cir. 1998).

Even assumin g that Williams preserved any error relating to

the merits of his case, the distr ict court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Williams’s motions for reconsideration.

Williams’s basis for reconsideration was the claim that he had

“discovered new evidence not available at summary j udgment.”

Williams argued that the relevant decisionmakers knew Williams

previously filed an EEOC claim at the time of his termination

because a third party mentioned that fact in their presence.

Williams further argued that his termination was a pretext for

discrimination because GTE Supply had a backup copy of the shipping

information which he allegedly erased, implying there was no reason

to fire him for destroying the other copy since the information was

not lost. The district court denied the motions for reconsideration

because Williams failed to explain why this n ew evidence was

previously unavailable to him and because the new evidence was

insufficient to establish that GTE Supply’s explanati on for the

termination was a pretext for discrimination or to establish a4

causal co nnection between Williams’s protected activity and the

adverse employment action.

Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b) allows a district court to

relieve a party from a final judgment based on newly discovered

evidence which could not have been timely discovered by due

diligence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Williams’s motions because Williams provided no explanation

for why this information was unavailable to him previously.

Furthermore, the mere fact that an employer keeps a backup of vital

information does not suggest that terminating an employee for

intentionally destroying the primary copy of that information is a

pretext for retaliatory discrimination.

AFFIRMED.