Case Name: Zennie KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.; Edwin Rogers, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-09
Citations: 84 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 03-60530
Parties: Zennie KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.; Edwin Rogers, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
Zennie KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.; Edwin Rogers, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-60530.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 9, 2004.
Zennie King, pro se, Port Gibson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Barbara Childs Wallace, Brenda Currie Jones, Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Zennie King, pro se, appeals the summary judgment dismissing her discrimination claims against Entergy Operations, Inc. and Edwin Rogers. She argues that she established a prima facie case of discrimination and that she was denied due process of law when the district court granted summary judgment and denied her a jury trial. King's argument is without merit. It is well-settled that "[n]o constitutional right to a trial exists when after notice and a reasonable opportunity a party fails to make the rule-required demonstration that some dispute of material fact exists which a trial could resolve." Oglesby v. Terminal Transport Co., 543 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir.1976) (rejecting contention that entry of summary judgment violated Seventh Amendment right to jury trial and Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of property without due process of law). As the district court explained in its thorough, well-reasoned opinion, King failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. We therefore AFFIRM the summary judgment, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.
King's motion for a default judgment in the amount of $20 million, because she has not received a copy of an order signed by a judge granting an extension of time for the appellees to file their brief is patently frivolous and is DENIED. The appellees' motion for an award of attorney's fees for having to respond to King's frivolous motion is DENIED, but King is warned that future frivolous filings will result in the imposition of sanctions against her.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
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.