Case Name: Donald A. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, also known as Houston Independent School District Board of Education; Dana Darden, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-10
Citations: 575 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 13-20761
Parties: Donald A. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, also known as Houston Independent School District Board of Education; Dana Darden, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Donald A. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, also known as Houston Independent School District Board of Education; Dana Darden, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-20761
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 10, 2014.
Herbert Lee Hawkins, Jr., Herbert Hawkins Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Bay City, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Paul A. Lamp, Lena Liddell Engel, Rogers, Morris & Grover, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons explained in detail by the court. Despite that careful 25-page disposition of all of the plaintiffs claims, we now have 50 pages of briefs that provide only the same allegations and new legal references but no support for plaintiffs claims. The problem for the plaintiff is the complete lack of any evidence of racial or gender discrimination or unequal treatment, and of any basis for the claim of procedural due process denial. No evidence connects different experience of other teachers with the claims of discrimination and due process. And as for due process, the plaintiff was given legal notice of non-renewal of his contract, and he was given process by the Board of the District and the Commissioner of Education.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.