Case Name: Alza E. HANNAWACKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-01
Citations: 326 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 08-31033
Parties: Alza E. HANNAWACKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
Alza E. HANNAWACKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-31033
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 1, 2009.
Gregory George Paul, Peirce, Raimond & Osterhout, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Bobby Stephen Gilliam, Wilkinson, Car-mody & Gilliam, Shreveport, LA, David Charles Lonergan, Hunton & Williams LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Alza E. Hannawacker sued her former employer, Defendant-Appellee Kansas City Southern Railway Co. ("KCS"), asserting violation of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). She based her claims on assertions of discrimination based on her sex, a disability, and retaliation for filing an EEOC charge. Following due proceedings had, the district court granted the motion of KCS for summary judgment and dismissed all claims asserted by Ms. Hannawacker. She timely filed a notice of appeal.
We have now reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, including the district court's Memorandum Ruling which patiently and exhaustively analyzes all aspects of Ms. Hannawacker's claims, disposing of each in order and ultimately dismissing all by summary judgment. Our review satisfies us that the district court got it right for all the right reasons. As nothing would be gained here by reiterating the district court's disposition of Ms. Hannawacker's claims against KCS, we affirm for essentially the same reasons as set forth by the court in its Memorandum Ruling.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.