Case Name: Rose PICKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Federal Protective Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-25
Citations: 262 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 07-20154
Parties: Rose PICKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Federal Protective Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 637–638

Head Matter:
Rose PICKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Federal Protective Service, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-20154
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 25, 2008.
Rose Pickett, Houston, TX, pro se.
Vernon Lydell Lewis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Rose Pickett, proceeding pro se on appeal, seeks reversal of the final judgment of the district court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, dismissing Pickett's action with prejudice. That action is grounded in claims of employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, and retaliation in violation of applicable federal and state statutes.
We have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, including the careful and exhaustive Memorandum Opinion and Order of the district court signed on January 5, 2007, as a result of which we are satisfied that the district court not only committed no reversible error, but properly and correctly granted and rendered the judgment from which Pickett appeals. For the reasons set forth by the district court in its said Memorandum Opinion and Order, the judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.