Court Opinion

ID: 9394211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 18:01:13.557134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.982707
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30537        Document: 00516748312             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/12/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-30537                                     FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                                 May 12, 2023
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Suleiman Abdu Ibrahim,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Department of Interior, Deb Haaland, Secretary,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                      USDC Nos. 2:19-CV-101, 2:19-CV-2201,
                                    2:19-CV-9316
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Plaintiff, Suleiman Abdu Ibrahim (“Ibrahim”), filed this action
   against his former employer, the Department of the Interior (“DOI”),
   seeking various forms of relief under Title VII for discriminatory and
   retaliatory conduct. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30537          Document: 00516748312              Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/12/2023

                                           No. 22-30537

           Plaintiff is a naturalized citizen of the United States who emigrated
   from Sudan. He is a fifty-five-year-old black male and a practicing Muslim.
   Plaintiff began work as a petroleum engineer with DOI in August 2013. He
   was terminated from his employment in October 2018.
           The magistrate judge, 1 based on careful, detailed reasons, granted
   summary judgment to DOI and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination
   based on his age, race, gender, and religion, as well as his hostile work
   environment claim. The magistrate judge thereafter conducted a bench trial
   regarding the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims, which included claims of
   discrimination based on national origin, retaliation, and retaliatory hostile
   work environment. At the conclusion of trial, the magistrate judge dismissed
   those claims, dictating reasons on the record. A final judgment was later
   entered in favor of DOI.
           Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, pro se litigants must still
   adequately brief issues in order to preserve them on appeal. 2 As DOI asserts,
   Plaintiff has waived any argument regarding the summary judgment
   dismissing his claims of age, race, gender, and religious discrimination, as
   well as his hostile work environment claim, by failing to brief the issues upon
   which that ruling was based. 3 Furthermore, although Plaintiff attempts to
   challenge the dismissal of the remaining claims tried during the bench trial,

           _____________________
           1
               The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
   § 636(c).
           2
            Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 n.6 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[P]ro se litigants have no
   general immunity from the rule that issues, and arguments not briefed on appeal are
   abandoned.”).
           3
           Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)
   (This Court “will not raise and discuss legal issues [Plaintiff] has failed to assert.”).

                                                     2
Case: 22-30537       Document: 00516748312          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/12/2023

                                     No. 22-30537

   he has also waived any argument regarding that dismissal by failing to
   describe how and/or why the magistrate judge’s conclusions were erroneous.
          Furthermore, we nonetheless have carefully reviewed the record in
   this matter, which fully supports the magistrate judge’s summary-judgment
   dismissal, as well as the court’s rejection of the remaining claims following
   trial. We agree with the magistrate judge that Plaintiff failed to present
   summary-judgment evidence sufficient to support his claims of age, race,
   gender, and religious discrimination, as well as his hostile work environment
   claim under Title VII. The court did not err in granting DOI summary
   judgment on those claims.
          We have also carefully reviewed the record, which fully supports the
   magistrate judge’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s remaining claims after
   conducting a bench trial. The testimony and evidence adduced at trial
   illuminate the reasons for Plaintiff’s difficulties in the workplace that led to
   his termination. The record fully supports the magistrate judge’s conclusion
   that Plaintiff was actively hostile to and disrespected his supervisors and was
   openly insubordinate and discourteous to them. He refused to follow
   instructions and office policies. He also refused to develop the skills that his
   supervisors wanted him to acquire to perform his job properly. When he was
   asked to mediate his dispute with his supervisors, he refused to do so.
          In sum, Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case supporting any
   of his discrimination or retaliation claims.
          For these reasons and those expressed in the magistrate judge’s
   thorough order granting summary judgment and reasons dictated on the
   record at the conclusion of the bench trial, we AFFIRM the judgment of the
   district court.

                                              3