Washington v. CWA ( 2002 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60686
Summary Calendar
WILLIE WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(3:00-CV-15-LN)
___________________________________________________________________
January 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie Washington contests, pro se, the adverse summary judgment
on his federal and state law claims. Washington, an employee of
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., brought this action against
Communication Workers of America (CWA), claiming: (1) racial
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) breach of a collective bargaining
agreement between CWA and BellSouth; and (3) negligent and/or
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Summary judgment was granted because: (1) service of process on
an affiliated, but autonomous, local union did not effect service
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
upon CWA; (2) even if CWA was properly served, service was made more
than 120 days after the complaint was filed; and (3) in the
alternative, no genuine issue of material fact remained as to any
claim and CWA was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Washington v. Communication Workers of America, No. 3:00-CV-15-LN, at
3-5 (S.D. Miss. 26 July 2001) (Washington-USDC).
We review a summary judgment de novo, applying the identical
standard used by the district court. Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d
530, 533 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 906 (1999). Summary
judgment should be granted if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as
a matter of law”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). “We view the pleadings and
summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant.” Stewart, 174 F.3d at 533.
In his brief, Washington does not mention, much less challenge
the insufficient service of process ruling. Therefore, we need not
address this issue, as we do not “consider issues or arguments not
raised in the appellant’s brief”. Blanchard v. Forrest, 71 F.3d
1163, 1169 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1013 (1996).
Accordingly, the summary judgment is
AFFIRMED.
2