Court Opinion

ID: 9839100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-11 18:00:50.441087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:58.207348
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50173        Document: 00516889381             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50173
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                             September 11, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Essie R. McDaniel Morris,                                                          Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Temple Independent School District, Benefits Dept. -
   David McCauley - Dir. of Personnel; Temple I.S.D.,
   Supt. of Temple Texas Schools; Susan Joyce Dasher;
   Nelson D. Taylor, Attorney,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:21-CV-1378
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Plaintiff–Appellant Essie R. McDaniel Morris, proceeding pro se,
   appeals the district court’s dismissal of her suit against Defendants-
   Appellees Temple Independent School District (“TISD”), Susan Joyce

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50173        Document: 00516889381              Page: 2      Date Filed: 09/11/2023

                                         No. 23-50173

   Dasher, and Nelson D. Taylor, for claims of discriminatory termination of
   employment under Title VII, breach of contract, and fraud relating to her
   Teacher Services Record. 1 Morris worked at TISD from 1975-1980 until the
   TISD Board of Trustees declined to renew her annual contract in 1980.
   Morris filed this action in response on December 29, 2021. TISD filed a
   motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Morris
   filed a motion for summary judgment. The district judge referred the motions
   to a magistrate judge, who recommended dismissing all of Morris’s claims as
   barred by the statute of limitations and denying Morris’s motion for summary
   judgment as moot. Morris did not timely file written objections to the
   proposed findings or recommendations and the district court adopted the
   magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, dismissing the case.
           Generally, we review a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss
   for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de
   novo. See NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 393 (5th Cir. 2015)
   (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). However, we
   apply the plain error standard when the complaining party fails to object to a
   report and recommendation of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §
   636(b)(1)(B) after having been “served with notice that such consequences
   will result from a failure to object.” Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79
   F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other
   grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Here, Morris was warned that failure to file
   written objections within 14 days from her receipt of the magistrate judge’s
   report and recommendation would bar her from appellate review of

           _____________________
           1
             Morris’s civil cover sheet also indicated that the nature of the suit includes
   numerous other claims. The district court did not address these additional actions, as they
   were not discussed in Morris’s complaint. Morris does not address any of these additional
   claims on appeal. This Court will not address them.

                                               2
Case: 23-50173      Document: 00516889381             Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/11/2023

                                       No. 23-50173

   unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by
   the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. She did not file timely
   objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and the
   district court did not conduct a de novo review of the record. As a result, the
   factual findings and legal conclusions adopted by the district court are
   reviewed for plain error. See id.
          Review of the record and of Morris’s briefs in this appeal show no
   error in the district court’s conclusion that her suit was time barred.
   Regardless of whether the applicable statute of limitations is 90 days or 180
   days to bring a claim of racial discrimination or retaliation under Title VII, or
   four years for state contract or fraud claims for an employment relationship,
   Morris’s employment with TISD ended May 30, 1980, placing all her claims
   well beyond any applicable statute of limitations. Insofar as Morris argues
   that this suit is timely because of newly acquired information, experiences,
   and observations, she fails to allege with particularity to what information she
   is referring to, or how this new information tolls the statute of limitations
   applicable to her case.
          Because the district court properly granted TISD’s motion to dismiss
   and denied Morris’s motion for summary judgment as moot, we AFFIRM
   the district court’s judgment.

                                            3