Jones v. General Nutrition Center Inc. , 185 F. App'x 343 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 14, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60923
Summary Calendar
MYRA JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GENERAL NUTRITION CENTER INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:02-CV-1195-WS
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mrya Jones seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
appeal following the district court’s judgment granting the
defendant’s summary-judgment motion and dismissing her 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000(e) complaint. In her complaint, Jones alleged that she
was fired because of her religious beliefs and practices.
This court may authorize Jones to proceed IFP on appeal if
she is unable to pay the costs of the appeal and the appeal is
taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents nonfrivolous
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-60923
-2-
issues. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1); see Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d
151, 153 (5th Cir. 1988).
Jones has failed to demonstrate that her appeal would
involve nonfrivolous issues. The summary-judgment evidence
showed that General Nutrition Centers, Inc., had articulated a
legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for Jones’s termination and
she had not borne her burden of establishing that the articulated
reason was pretextual. Threadgill v. Prudential Sec. Group,
Inc., 145 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1998); McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973). Jones’s motion for IFP is
therefore denied and her appeal dismissed. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.