Parents Agnst Test v. Orleans Parish Sch, e ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 00-31267
_______________________
PARENTS AGAINST TESTING BEFORE TEACHING, an unincorporated
association; CHARMAINE BRYANT, individually and on behalf of her
minor child, Krystal Bryant; BRYANT SMOOT; STEPHEN SMOOT,
individually and on behalf of their minor child, Lynette Smoot;
WAYNE THOMPSON; ROMONA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of
their minor children Savannah Thompson and Stephen Thompson;
NATHANIEL BROWN; DIANNE BROWN, individually and on behalf of their
minor child, Irene Brown; ALTHEA FRANKLIN, individually and on
behalf of her minor child, Dominique Franklin; DIEDRA RAYFIELD,
individually and on behalf of her minor child, Jessie Rayfield;
EVELYN MAGEE; MELVIN MAGEE, individually and on behalf of their
minor child, Maurice Magee; TAMAR ALLEN, individually and on behalf
of her minor child, Daniel Allen; NAOMI MARK, individually and on
behalf of her minor child, Tiffany Raines,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD; GAIL MOORE GLAPION, in her official
capacity as Board President; THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF
ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION; GLENNY LEE BUQUET, in her
capacity as president of the State Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education; CECIL PICARD, in his capacity as Louisiana’s
State Superintendent of Education,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Civil Docket #00-CV-2525
_________________________________________________________________
September 17, 2001
Before DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges and BARBOUR, District
Judge.*
PER CURIAM:**
This court has carefully considered the issues on appeal
in light of the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and pertinent
portions of the records. Having done so, we, first, find no
deficiency in the appellants’ notice of appeal and therefore have
appellate jurisdiction.
Next, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the
district court. The court did not err in finding no due process
violations under federal or applicable state law. In particular,
the Deborah P. case cited by appellants pertains to the narrow
right of graduating seniors to obtain a diploma, and not to any
expectation of promotion in the public schools from year to year.
Deborah P. v. Turlington, 644 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. -- Unit B 1981).
Further, appellants’ briefing did not sustain their assertion of
private causes of action under federal statutes, including those
covering age discrimination. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the
administration of the LEAP21 test and enforcement of its results.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
*
District Judge of the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by
designation.
**
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.
2