Case Name: Lupe PICASSO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF NACOGDOCHES, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-01
Citations: 426 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 10-40322
Parties: Lupe PICASSO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF NACOGDOCHES, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 232–232

Head Matter:
Lupe PICASSO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF NACOGDOCHES, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-40322
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 1, 2011.
Timothy Borne Garrigan, Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter Law Offices, Nacogdoches, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert T. Cain, Jr., Robert Alderman, Jr., Zeleskey Cornelius Hallmark Roper & Hicks, L.L.P., Lufkin, TX, for Defendant Appellee.
Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Lupe Picasso, a former employee of Defendant-Appellee City of Nacogdoches, Texas, appeals the district court's March 2, 2010 take-nothing judgement. That judgment was rendered pursuant to the court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of even date following a bench trial on Picasso's employment claims. Her action was grounded in allegations that discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy, race, and national origin, as well as retaliation, culminated in her being fired from her job at the City's animal shelter.
We have reviewed the briefs and record excerpts of the parties, including the extensive analysis of the case presented by the parties at the bench trial, as set forth in the district court's opinion. As a result, we are convinced that the district court correctly disposed of Picasso's case and committed no reversible error in the course of doing so. Accordingly, the judgement of that court is, in all respects,
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.