King v. Entergy Operations, Inc. , 84 F. App'x 470 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 9, 2004
_____________________
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-60530 Clerk
Summary Calendar
_____________________
ZENNIE KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.; EDWIN ROGERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:01-CV-42-BN
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Zennie King, pro se, appeals the summary judgment dismissing
her discrimination claims against Entergy Operations, Inc. and
Edwin Rogers. She argues that she established a prima facie case
of discrimination and that she was denied due process of law when
the district court granted summary judgment and denied her a jury
trial. King’s argument is without merit. It is well-settled that
“[n]o constitutional right to a trial exists when after notice and
a reasonable opportunity a party fails to make the rule-required
demonstration that some dispute of material fact exists which a
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
trial could resolve.” Oglesby v. Terminal Transport Co., 543 F.2d
1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting contention that entry of
summary judgment violated Seventh Amendment right to jury trial and
Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of property without due
process of law). As the district court explained in its thorough,
well-reasoned opinion, King failed to demonstrate the existence of
a genuine issue of material fact. We therefore AFFIRM the summary
judgment, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.
King’s motion for a default judgment in the amount of $20
million, because she has not received a copy of an order signed by
a judge granting an extension of time for the appellees to file
their brief is patently frivolous and is DENIED. The appellees’
motion for an award of attorney’s fees for having to respond to
King’s frivolous motion is DENIED, but King is warned that future
frivolous filings will result in the imposition of sanctions
against her.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
2