United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10776

Summary Calendar

____________

Candace Searcy, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Crowley Independent School District, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:23-CV-647

______________________________

Before Davis, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Candace Searcy, proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed suit against Crowley Independent School District (“CISD”)

alleging that CISD breached her employment contract, embezzled money, 

harassed and discriminated against her, and ultimately retaliated against her 

for reporting these issues to human resources. To better understand 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 2, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10776 Document: 00516916384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2023
No. 23-10776

2

Searcy’s claims, the magistrate judge ordered Searcy to answer a questionnaire. 

Because Searcy proceeded in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge reviewed the sufficiency of her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As 

part of that review, the magistrate judge construed Searcy’s claims of discrimination and retaliation as falling under the purview of Title VII and its 

state counterpart, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, and recommended 

that these claims be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

The magistrate judge also recommended that supplemental jurisdiction over 

Searcy’s state-law claims should be declined. The district court adopted 

these recommendations and dismissed Searcy’s complaint without prejudice

for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Searcy 

timely appealed.

We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo.

1

 In determining whether the complaint fails to 

state a claim, we “us[e] the same standard applicable to dismissals under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”2

The district court did not err in dismissing Searcy’s complaint for failure to state a claim based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies.3

 

“Employment discrimination plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing claims in federal court.”4 Exhaustion requires the 

_____________________

1 Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).

2 Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

3 See Dao v. Auchan Hypermarket, 96 F.3d 787, 788-89 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissing a 

plaintiff’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the plaintiff 

“did not file a disability discrimination charge with the EEOC or with a state or local 

agency” and therefore did not receive a right-to-sue letter).

4 Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2002).

Case: 23-10776 Document: 00516916384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2023
No. 23-10776

3

plaintiff to file “a timely charge with the EEOC and receive[] a statutory notice of right to sue.”5

 

On appeal, Searcy for the first time requests a default judgment of 

$20,000 in damages for the “federal crimes” of embezzlement and breach of 

contract. However, she fails to brief any argument challenging the district 

court’s determination that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies 

or the court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law 

claims.6 At most, Searcy asserts that she filed a charge of discrimination with 

the Texas Workforce Commission and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but she does not address whether she has received a 

right-to-sue letter from either agency. Thus, because Searcy does not address many of the district court’s findings it “is the same as if [s]he had not 

appealed that judgment.”7

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

_____________________

5 Id. (citation omitted). This Court, in applying Texas law, has held that failure to 

receive a Texas Workforce Commission right-to-sue letter is a condition precedent, not a 

jurisdictional prerequisite to filing suit. Gorman v. Verizon Wireless Tex., L.L.C., 753 F.3d

165, 170 (5th Cir. 2014).

6 See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (requiring even pro se 

litigants to brief arguments in order to maintain them).

7 Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Case: 23-10776 Document: 00516916384 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/02/2023