Case Name: Charles L. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NACOGDOCHES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-03
Citations: 301 F. App'x 324
Docket Number: No. 08-40745
Parties: Charles L. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NACOGDOCHES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
Charles L. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NACOGDOCHES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-40745
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 3, 2008.
Curtis B. Stuckey, Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter, Nacogdoches, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Todd Aaron Clark, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This is a race and age discrimination case. The plaintiff-appellant is a 58-year-old African-American who despite his good credentials and experience working for NISD in the early 1990s was unable to convince it to hire him again in 2003 or 2004.
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on July 16, 2008 (due to a factual issue that was corrected on the prompting of the defendant, it issued an amended order of summary judgment the next day). The appellant-plaintiffs brief offers no meaningful challenge to the district court's memorandum in support of its grant of summary judgment. He has raised no genuine issue as to any material fact, and therefore the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. Appellant's brief on appeal appears only to challenge the rulings made under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Further, he leaves unchallenged the appellee's argument that his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim is jurisdictionally defective. In any case, we need not parse these issues because none could disturb our disposition of this appeal.