Case Name: Richard ARIZPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary E. PETERS, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration; Cari M. Dominguez, Chairwoman, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 260 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 07-50819
Parties: Richard ARIZPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary E. PETERS, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration; Cari M. Dominguez, Chairwoman, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 663–663

Head Matter:
Richard ARIZPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary E. PETERS, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration; Cari M. Dominguez, Chairwoman, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-50819
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 21, 2007.
Richard Arizpe, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
Robert Keith Shaw-Meadow, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Arizpe sued under title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. As the magistrate judge stated,
[Plaintiff] is obviously upset with the circumstances surrounding his employment with defendant, as evidenced by the lawsuits he filed in 1998 and 2002 against the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration [footnote omitted]. Plaintiffs conclusory allegations and legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions, however, cannot suffice to prevent defendant's motion to dismiss in this case.
After reviewing the briefs and pertinent parts of the x-ecord and the applicable law, we affirm, essentially for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in her comprehensive Report and Recommendation signed on January 12, 2007. We also conclude that Arizpe's argument that the district court's ruling is legally invalid because it listed Maria Ciño as Acting Secretary of Transpoi'tation, rather than Mary Peters as Secretary of Transpoi'tation, is frivolous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d) ("[A]ny misnomer not affecting the parties' substantial rights must be disregarded."). Arizpe's other arguments are equally unavailing.
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.