Case Name: Jessie M. YATES, Appellant, v. Bernard J. MANALE, U. S. Army Oversea Supply Agency, U. S. Civil Service Commission et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1967-06-07
Citations: 377 F.2d 888
Docket Number: No. 23313
Parties: Jessie M. YATES, Appellant, v. Bernard J. MANALE, U. S. Army Oversea Supply Agency, U. S. Civil Service Commission et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 377
Pages: 888–889

Head Matter:
Jessie M. YATES, Appellant, v. Bernard J. MANALE, U. S. Army Oversea Supply Agency, U. S. Civil Service Commission et al., Appellees.
No. 23313.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
June 7, 1967.
Jessie M. Yates, pro se.
Walter F. Gemeinhardt, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Louis C. La Cour, U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before THORNBERRY and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was a stenographic traffic clerk with the United States Army Oversea Supply Agency. On November 15, 1962, she was advised in writing by her superior that to determine her fitness for duty arrangements had been made for her to take a medical examination at no cost to her. The next day appellant refused in writing to submit to the examination. She was duly advised by the agency that her refusal could be viewed as an act of insubordination. Nevertheless, she persisted in her refusal and was discharged for insubordination. That decision was affirmed by the Civil Service Commission and the Board of Appeals and Review. Judicial relief was sought by the appellant in the District Court which granted the appellees' motion for a summary judgment. We affirm.
Appellant sought both in the administrative actions and in the judicial proceedings to challenge the necessity of her taking a medical examination. But that was not the issue upon which she was discharged; her insubordination stemmed from her refusal to submit to the examination and not from the reasons the agency may have had for seeking such an examination.
The court below correctly concluded there were no genuine issues of material facts and that the uncontroverted record established that in discharging appellant her superiors had substantially complied with the applicable statutes and regulations.
The appellant is without standing to contend bias by the District Court since she failed to file a timely affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. Furthermore, the decision below rested solely on legal conclusions which have been fully reviewed by this Court and found correct.
This affirmance is without prejudice to appellant raising, if she chooses, in the court below the issue of her competency on the date of her refusal to submit to the examination.