Roye v. Safety-Kleen (Deer Park), Inc. ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                September 30, 2004
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 04-20166
    Summary Calendar
    LARRY ROYE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    SAFETY-KLEEN (DEER PARK), INC.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-02-CV-2848
    --------------------
    Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Larry Roye appeals the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment to Safety-Kleen (Deer Park), Inc., (SK) in this
    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case.   Roye argues that the
    district court erred in determining that his Dumping Syndrome did
    not leave him disabled under the ADA and that he was not
    qualified to perform the job function of attendance.     Roye also
    argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20166
    -2-
    to SK because SK improperly assessed the number of points that
    were attributable to his absences.
    Roye has failed to show that his DS substantially limited
    one or more major life activities.    See Toyota Motor Mfg., Inc.,
    v. Williams, 
    534 U.S. 184
    , 197 (2002).   Roye has likewise failed
    to show that the district court erred in concluding that he could
    not perform one of the major functions of his job.    See Hypes v.
    First Commerce Corp., 
    134 F.3d 721
    , 726 (5th Cir. 1998).    Roye’s
    contentions concerning the propriety vel non of SK’s assessment
    of points for his absences do not effect the district court’s
    analysis.
    Roye has not shown that the district court erred in granting
    SK’s motion for summary judgment.    Accordingly, the judgment of
    the district court is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-20166

Judges: Garza, Demoss, Clement

Filed Date: 9/30/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024