Dorsett v. LA Tech University ( 2002 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-31194
Summary Calendar
_____________________
CHARLES DORSETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY; ET AL.,
Defendants,
LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY; RICHARD GREECHIE; BARRY KURTZ;
KENNETH REA; DANIEL D. RENEAU; BARRY BENEDICT; LESLIE GUICE;
EUGENE CALLENS; RUTH ELLEN HANNA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(98-CV-210)
February 28, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Dorsett appeals, pro se, the summary judgment awarded
defendants with respect to his claims for: violation of First
Amendment and due process rights; and state-law defamation. The
district court, after conducting a de novo review, adopted the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, concluding
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Dorsett had failed to establish: constitutional deprivations with
respect to his First Amendment and due process claims; and various
elements of a state-law defamation claim.
“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same standard as the district court. A motion for summary judgment
is properly granted only if there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact.” Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites,
Inc., 271 F.3d 624, 626 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal citations
omitted). “Although we must draw all inferences in favor of the
party opposing the motion, an opposing party cannot establish a
genuine issue of material fact by resting on the mere allegations
of the pleadings. A properly supported motion for summary judgment
should be granted unless the opposing party produces sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that a genuine factual issue exists.”
Dorsett v. Bd. of Trs. for State Colls. & Univs., 940 F.2d 121, 123
(5th Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted).
Dorsett’s initial and reply briefs constitute little more than
an eighty-plus-page diatribe directed at defendants. He does not
state specific points of error, other than ask for review to
determine whether there is error in the final judgment. Likewise,
he does next to nothing in the way of addressing the district
court’s reasons for granting summary judgment. Simply put, he has
wholly failed to comply with the rules concerning the requirements
for a brief. In any event, he has not shown that a genuine issue
2
of material fact exists and that defendants are not entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
AFFIRMED
3