Case Name: Arleigh A. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-04
Citations: 96 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 03-11203
Parties: Arleigh A. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
Arleigh A. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-11203.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 4, 2004.
Ronnie Dwaine Wilson, McDonald & Wilson, Richardson, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Susan L. S. Ernst, US Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arleigh A. Miller (hereinafter Plaintiff) filed suit in October, 2001, against Donald H. Rumsfeld (hereinafter Defendant) in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Defense and Operator of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) by whom Plaintiff was employed. Plaintiff asserts that she was discriminated against on the basis of age and retaliated against for asserting her age discrimination claim in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("ADEA"). In March, 2003, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which the district court granted in October, 2003, by a ten page memorandum opinion and order. Plaintiff timely filed this appeal.
We have carefully examined the briefs, the record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion and order filed on October 14, 2003, we affirm the final judgment entered by the district court in favor of Defendant entered on October 14, 2003.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.