* 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. 06-31243

EVIA P. HODGE

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General; 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles

USDC No. 2:05-CV-707

Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Evia P. Hodge (Hodge) appeals the district court’s

judgment in favor of her employer in this discrimination case. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Hodge has been employed by the United States Postal Service (Postal

Service) as a customer relations coordinator since 1999. In 2003, Hodge filed a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
2

sex discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC). In December 2004, after conducting a hearing, the

administrative law judge (ALJ) found in favor of Hodge on her sexual

harassment claim. The ALJ awarded $40,000 in compensatory damages. The

Postal Service issued a check in the amount of $40,000 to Hodge.

In 2005, Hodge filed suitin federal district court againstthePostal Service

and Postmaster General, alleging discrimination based on her sex and

retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. The

defendants filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking to recover the $40,000.

In 2006, the defendants filed two motions for summary judgment. The first

motion asserted there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to her

claims of sexual harassment or retaliation. The second motion contended that

Hodge’s complaint should be dismissed because she failed to timely exhaust her

administrative remedies. Hodge responded to both motions and the defendants

filed a reply. 

On September 20, the district court denied the motion for summary

judgment regarding the claim that Hodge had failed to timely exhaust her

administrative remedies. However, the district court granted summary

judgment against Hodge with respect to her sex discrimination and retaliation

claims, finding no genuine issue of material fact. 

On September 21, the district court ordered the parties to submit briefs

with respect to the defendants’ counterclaim. Although the defendants filed a

brief in support of their counterclaim, Hodge failed to do so. On October 24, the

district court granted the defendants’ counterclaim and ordered judgment

against Hodge in the amount of $40,000. Hodge now appeals.
3

II. ANALYSIS

A. Summary Judgment

In her initial brief, Hodge contends thatthe district court erred in granting

summary judgment. More specifically, Hodge argues that the district court

erred in finding that she had nottimely exhausted her administrative remedies.

Hodge is mistaken;the district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment with respect to this claim. Instead, the district court granted

summary judgment because it found no genuine issue of material fact with

respect to the sex discrimination and retaliation claims. 

The appellees argue that by failing to brief the proper issue, Hodge has

abandoned her challenge to the summary judgment. In her reply brief, Hodge

admits that she addressed the wrong issue. Nonetheless, Hodge argues that she

did not abandon the issue because she did contend that the district court erred

in granting summary judgment. Hodge also points out that her initial brief

contains “instances of the harassment she received over four years [that] were

addressed that showed terms, conditions and privileges of her employment to be

both subjectively and objectively affected.” The language she refers to is

contained in the statement of facts in her brief, but is not made in the context

of an argument. 

Hodge’s failure to brief any argument challenging the district court’s

reason for dismissal results in abandonment of the issue. See Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (stating that

“appellant’s brief must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for

them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the

appellant relies”) . Moreover, issues raised for the first time in an appellant’s

reply brief are also not considered. See United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379,

1386 (5th Cir. 1989). Hodge therefore abandoned any challenge to the district
1 We note that even this argument is not supported by any authorities and was not

advanced in Hodge’s reply to the counterclaim in district court.

4

court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the discrimination and

retaliation claims.

In the alternative, Hodge requests this Courtto “order a new original brief

be submitted with the briefing order re-set.” We DENY this request.

B. Counterclaim

Hodge next contends that the district court erred in holding that she was

not entitled to retain the award of $40,000. Hodge states that “[t]he court should

not have granted this counterclaim as Ms. Hodge and the defendant entered into

an agreement for the monetary payment as a result of the EEOC judgment and

as such, the agreement should be honored.”1 The appellees respond that Hodge

has failed to adequately brief the counterclaim issue. The appellees first note

that in district court, Hodge failed to brief the issue as ordered. The appellees

also correctly note that the six lines of argument with respect to the

counterclaim in her initial brief do not contain authority or citations to the

record. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225; FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A). As such, we

agree that Hodge effectively abandoned the issue by failing to adequately brief

it. 

Nonetheless, even assuming the issue is properly raised, Hodge has not

shown that the district court erred in granting the counterclaim. As set forth

above, Hodge has not shown that the district court erred in granting summary

judgment against her with respect to the discrimination and retaliation claims.

The ALJ had awarded Hodge $40,000 based on those claims. 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), Hodge had the right to bring a civil

action if she was “aggrieved” by the final decision ofthe agency. Hodge filed suit

in district court, seeking a declaration that the defendants’ conduct was

unlawful, additional compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees. The relief
2 On the other hand, a federal employee may also bring suit in district court to enforce

a favorable agency order. Girard v. Rubin, 62 F.3d 1244, 1247 (9th Cir. 1995). A federal

employee may seek such enforcement “without risking de novo review of the merits.” Id. In

the case at bar, Hodge had received the $40,000 check and deposited it in her bank account.

In light of the defendants’ full compliance with the agency order, Hodge

could not have been seeking enforcement of the order. 

5

requested demonstrates that she was seeking de novo review in the district

court. Indeed, in the district court, Hodge admitted that she was seeking a trial

de novo. “[W]hen a federal employee comes to court to challenge, in whole or in

part,the administrative disposition of his or her discrimination claims,the court

must consider those claims de novo, and is not bound by the results of the

administrative process. . . .” (William) Morris v. Rumsfeld, 420 F.3d 287, 294

(3d Cir. 2005); see also Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 421 (4th Cir. 2006) (en

banc) (holding that a federal employee cannot bring a civil action placing only

the allegedly insufficient administrative remedy at issue—the employee must

also place the finding of discrimination at issue).2

Therefore, by seeking de novo review in district court, Hodge incurred the

risk of losing on the merits, which is precisely what happened. Hodge has not

demonstrated that the district court erred. 

For the above reasons, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.