Ibrahim v. DOI ( 2023 )

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