Plummer v. MS State Dept Hlth ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60313
Summary Calendar
DONALD PLUMMER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(3:00-CV-551-BN)
--------------------
November 7, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Donald Plummer is a black male who, while
employed by the Mississippi State Department of Health (“MSDH”) as
a data processing programmer, was one of fourteen applicants
interviewed for a vacancy in the position of Senior Network
Specialist. After a white male applicant, Charlie Davis, was
selected for the position, Plummer filed administrative complaints
with Mississippi’s Employee Appeals Board (“EAB”) and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging racial-
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
discrimination violations of Title VII for failure to promote.
When neither the EAB nor the EEOC found any basis for Plummer’s
claims, he filed the instant suit. Eventually, the district court
granted MSDH’s motion for dismissal or, alternatively, summary
judgment, dismissing Plummer’s federal claims with prejudice and
his state claims without prejudice. We affirm the court’s grant of
summary judgment.
We have reviewed the Opinion and Order filed by the district
court on March 6, 2002, granting MSDH’s alternative motion, as well
as the entire record on appeal (including, without limitation, all
affidavits and the Order of the EAB filed October 5, 2000); and we
have carefully considered the arguments and legal citations in the
appellate briefs of the parties. As a result of our review we are
satisfied that the district court correctly granted summary
judgment.
In its analysis, the district court followed the well-known
burden-shifting minuet established by the Supreme Court’s precedent
and ours to reach the conclusion that —— even if the court were to
assume without granting that Plummer made a prima facie case for
any or all of the Title VII and § 1983 claims he advances —— the
overwhelming summary judgment evidence of the legitimate, non-
discriminatory reasons given by the MSDH for promoting Davis rather
than Plummer or any of the other applicants, in combination with
the total absence of evidence of racial animus (other than
Plummer’s own conclusional assertions), supports the court’s
2
rulings. And, as the district court’s Opinion and Order carefully,
logically, and fully lays out the material facts that are not
genuinely disputed, as well as the law applicable to the case, it
would be a waste of paper and judicial resources for us to
reiterate the same facts, law, reasoning, and conclusion. Instead,
for essentially the same reasons and reasoning expressed by the
district court, its judgment is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
3