Case Name: Halima KNOX, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIXON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Linda Jenkins, Master Sergeant-Warehouse; Romona Jackson, Master Sergeant-Warehouse; Henry Wonder, Sergeant-Unit 1; Unknown Bissett, Sergeant-Unit 2; Lane Thomas, Assistant Warden-Unit 2; Richard Courtney, H.R., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-19
Citations: 539 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 11-31113
Parties: Halima KNOX, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIXON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Linda Jenkins, Master Sergeant—Warehouse; Romona Jackson, Master Ser geant—Warehouse; Henry Wonder, Sergeant—Unit 1; Unknown Bissett, Sergeant—Unit 2; Lane Thomas, Assistant Warden—Unit 2; Richard Courtney, H.R., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
Halima KNOX, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIXON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Linda Jenkins, Master Sergeant—Warehouse; Romona Jackson, Master Ser geant—Warehouse; Henry Wonder, Sergeant—Unit 1; Unknown Bissett, Sergeant—Unit 2; Lane Thomas, Assistant Warden—Unit 2; Richard Courtney, H.R., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-31113
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 19, 2013.
Halimah Knox, Port Allen, LA, pro se.
Susan Wall Griffin, Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Hamila Knox appeals the judgment of the district court and seeks damages and reinstatement as an employee of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety. She has not presented to this court any legal error by the district court. She complains of a problem with her uniform and also discusses her medical problems, but she has failed to connect any complaint to a material adverse employment action by the defendant state agency. The Referee who considered her appeal to the Civil Service explained the necessity of her relating specific details of discriminatory action to justify any legal recovery, and the district judge repeated that requirement. Her reply brief attempts to do better, but it, too, is largely based on conclusions and is unconnected to any legal claim.
Again, there is no error of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
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.