Case Name: David GUEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James D. ROCHE, Secretary U.S. Air Force, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-17
Citations: 155 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 05-50658
Parties: David GUEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James D. ROCHE, Secretary U.S. Air Force, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 145–145

Head Matter:
David GUEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James D. ROCHE, Secretary U.S. Air Force, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-50658.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 17, 2005.
Arthur G. Guzman, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Susan B. Biggs, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for D efendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In February 2004 David Guel ("Plaintiff") filed his original complaint against James D. Roche, Secretary U.S. Air Force ("Defendant") asserting that Guel was discriminated against on the basis of his national origin (Hispanic), and age (51), when he was terminated from his employment as a sheet metal worker at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. Defendant answered, and in February 2005 filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In April 2005 the District Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, concluding that Plaintiff had not shown a prima facie case of discrimination.
Final judgment in favor of Defendant was entered on July 20, 2005. Plaintiff timely appealed to this court.
We have carefully reviewed the Briefs, the Reply Brief, the Record Excerpts, and relevant portions of the Record itself. For the reasons stated by the District Court in its Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, we affirm the Final Judgment entered on July 20, 2005. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.