Court Opinion

ID: 57275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 02:02:07+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:38.597740
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
  
   *
  

  Richard Arizpe sued under title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. As the magistrate judge stated,
 

  [Plaintiff] is obviously upset with the circumstances surrounding his employment with defendant, as evidenced by the lawsuits he filed in 1998 and 2002 against the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration [footnote omitted]. Plaintiffs conclusory allegations and legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions, however, cannot suffice to prevent defendant’s motion to dismiss in this case.
 

  After reviewing the briefs and pertinent parts of the x-ecord and the applicable law, we affirm, essentially for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in her comprehensive Report and Recommendation signed on January 12, 2007. We also conclude that Arizpe’s argument that the district court’s ruling is legally invalid because it listed Maria Ciño as Acting Secretary of Transpoi’tation, rather than Mary Peters as Secretary of Transpoi’tation, is frivolous.
  
   See
  
  Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d) (“[A]ny misnomer not affecting the parties’ substantial rights must be disregarded.”). Arizpe’s other arguments are equally unavailing.
 

  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   Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.