Court Opinion

ID: 9949993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 00:00:42.270578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:49.748514
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10510            Document: 65-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/12/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 23-10510
                                   ____________                                     FILED
                                                                              March 12, 2024
Monica Lynn MacConnell McReynolds,                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk
                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Bell Textron, Incorporated,

                                             Defendant—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:22-CV-194
                   ______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Monica Lynn MacConnell McReynolds brought employment
discrimination and various state-law claims against her former employer, Bell
Textron. The district court dismissed McReynolds’s claims with prejudice.
McReynolds appealed. We have carefully considered the appeal in light of
the briefs, opinion of the district court, and pertinent portions of the record.
Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or law. AFFIRMED.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.