Case Name: Elnora MOSES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-04
Citations: 489 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 12-10262
Parties: Elnora MOSES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
Elnora MOSES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-10262
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 4, 2012.
Elnora Moses, Dime Box, TX, pro se.
Scot Macdonald Graydon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After Elnora Moses ("Moses") was placed on disciplinary probation for creating a disruptive work environment and ultimately terminated for failing to meet the requirements of her conditional Return to Work Certification, she filed suit against her former employer, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ"). Moses's complaint alleged that she suffered from a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment and that TCEQ unlawfully retaliated against her for complaining about the harassment. Finding that Moses failed to present facts sufficient to meet the prima facie requirements of a Title VII hostile work environment claim based on sexual harassment or a Title VII retaliation case, the district court granted TCEQ's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Moses's suit with prejudice.
Moses's deficient briefing fails to cite any evidence or legal authority supporting her claims. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Even assuming that Moses properly briefed her claims, the record shows that the district court properly concluded that there is no genuine issue of material fact.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.