Case Name: Yolanda LOWE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERICAN EUROCOPTER, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-07
Citations: 471 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 11-60483
Parties: Yolanda LOWE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERICAN EUROCOPTER, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 257–258

Head Matter:
Yolanda LOWE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERICAN EUROCOPTER, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-60483
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 7, 2012.
Chynee A. Bailey, Raymond, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Scott Fuller Singley, Esq., Lindsey Smith Wiseman, Esq., Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, P.L.L.C., Columbus, MS, Christopher Ray Fontan, Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, P.L.L.C., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Yolanda Lowe appeals the district court's summary judgment, based upon judicial estoppel, which had the effect of dismissing her employment discrimination claims. The district court concluded that Lowe's failure to schedule these claims on her bankruptcy schedules met the test for imposition of judicial estoppel against her. See generally Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir.2011) (en banc)(listing elements necessary to support a finding of judicial estoppel).
In the district court, Lowe failed to file a response to the American Eurocopter's motion for summary judgment or otherwise raise any challenge to it in that court. On appeal, American Eurocopter argues that she therefore failed to preserve any error in the district court. We agree. We "generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal." Ries v. Paige, 610 F.3d 865, 871 (5th Cir.2010). Lowe did not file a reply brief in our court and has not argued anything that would take this case outside that general rule.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.