Case Name: Lisa COLVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM; Stephen Richters, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-13
Citations: 593 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 14-30086
Parties: Lisa COLVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM; Stephen Richters, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
Lisa COLVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM; Stephen Richters, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-30086.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 2015.
Dale Edward Williams, Law Office of Dale Edward Williams, Covington, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Michael Lee Dubos, Kermit Lamar Walters, III, Esq., Breithaupt, Dunn, Dubos, Shafto & Wolleson, L.L.C., Monroe, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lisa Colvin ("Colvin") appeals from a final judgment entered by the district court, which granted summary judgment to defendants, the University of Louisiana Monroe and Dr. Stephen Richters ("Richt-ers"). Colvin appeals only the determination that Richters cannot be sued in his individual capacity for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act. A careful review of the record in this case, a full consideration of the parties' briefs and oral arguments on appeal, and a thorough analysis of the district court's ruling, lead us to conclude that the district court's judgment was not in error. Colvin's complaint is insufficiently pleaded to overcome the sovereign immunity protection of the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, we uphold the district court's determination that Richters may not be sued in his individual capacity.
The district judgment is AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.