Case Name: Larry D. CHRISTMAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-08
Citations: 534 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 12-60536
Parties: Larry D. CHRISTMAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
Larry D. CHRISTMAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-60536
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 8, 2013.
Larry D. Christmas, Jr., Pascagoula, MS, pro se.
Brooks Eason, Ceejaye S. Peters, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Ber-kowitz, P.C., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry Christmas, Jr., pro se, appeals a summary judgment and various orders entered in his suit against his former employer, Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, for retaliation, discrimination, wrongful termination, and emotional distress in connection with his suspension and termination. In a comprehensive order entered June 5, 2012, the district court carefully explained why none of Christmas's claims has merit. In short, the court observed that "[a]ll of the summary judgment evidence before the Court demonstrates that Christmas was suspended due to a perceived threat that he would engage in workplace violence, and he was terminated due to excessive absences for which he failed to provide timely excuses." We have reviewed the record and the briefs and conclude that the district court was correct, its reasoning sound.
The summary judgment is AFFIRMED. Christmas's motion for reconsideration of the order denying, as moot, his motion to strike the defendant's brief is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.