Case Name: Shirlene GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAGE TELECOM INC, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-07
Citations: 253 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 06-11132
Parties: Shirlene GRAY, Plaintiff—Appellant v. SAGE TELECOM INC, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 253
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
Shirlene GRAY, Plaintiff—Appellant v. SAGE TELECOM INC, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-11132.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 7, 2007.
Jerry Hicks, Winstead, Sechrest & Minick, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Lawrence J. McNamara, Locke Liddell & Sapp, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order entered October 3, 2006, which cannot be improved upon. The district court, in perhaps an excess of caution, discussed the impact of Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), on claims of retaliation under Title VII. In plaintiff-appellant Shirlene Gray's appellate brief, that issue is inadequately briefed (as it was in the district court), and in affirming the district court's judgment, we do not address (because we need not, see L & A Contracting Co. v. Southern Concrete Services, Inc., 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir.1994)) that issue or the district court's conclusions with respect thereto.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.