Case Name: Martha H. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-30
Citations: 294 F. App'x 171
Docket Number: No. 07-51389
Parties: Martha H. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
Martha H. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-51389
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 30, 2008.
James Ashley Endicott, Jr., Endicott Law Offices, Harker Heights, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert Keith Shaw-Meadow, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Martha Jackson appeals a summary judgment entered on her claim of retaliation and on discrimination on account of race, sex, age, and religion. The district court entered a lengthy and convincing Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining why Jackson's suit has no merit. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by that court.
As the district court explained, plaintiff alleges "fourteen factually [discrete] occasions where she claims her civil rights were violated." Some of those events, as the district court explained, do not constitute adverse employment actions. One incident — a twelve-day suspension — is an adverse action but, as the district court reasoned, there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
One incident deserves special mention. Jackson asserts that a lieutenant colonel uttered an extremely offensive and unacceptable racial epithet in reference to her. Although that conduct was reprehensible, Jackson has presented no evidence that the lieutenant colonel in question had authority over the employment decisions that Jackson questions or that the remark was in any way related to those employment actions.
In sum, Jackson has made no showing that any of the myriad actions complained of resulted from discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The district court has shown why summary judgment is amply justified.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.