Johnson-Luster v. Wormuth ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Case: 22-30422         Document: 00516898037             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/18/2023
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 22-30422                                   FILED
    Summary Calendar                         September 18, 2023
    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Barbara Johnson-Luster,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the Army,
    Defendant—Appellee.
    ______________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:19-CV-2235
    ______________________________
    Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam: *
    Barbara Johnson-Luster, a former employee of the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers, sued after having resigned, raising numerous employment-
    related claims under, inter alia, Title VII and the ADA. She alleged discrim-
    inatory conduct in the form of constructive termination, failing to promote,
    failing to accommodate her disability, unequal terms and conditions of em-
    ployment, retaliation, and harassment based on race, color, sex, and national
    _____________________
    *
    This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
    Case: 22-30422        Document: 00516898037          Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/18/2023
    No. 22-30422
    origin.
    The parties consented, per 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c), to having the matter
    determined by the magistrate judge sitting as the district court. After three
    years of proceedings, the court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary
    judgment. The court carefully explored all of Johnson-Luster’s contentions
    and explained its reasons in a detailed 30-page order, Docket No. 74, entered
    on March 14, 2022.
    Johnson-Luster appeals pro se.
    We have examined the briefs, pertinent parts of the record, and the
    applicable law. There is no reason to try to improve on the district court’s
    comprehensive explication of the issues on appeal. The summary judgment
    is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons advanced by the district court.
    Johnson-Luster’s motion for oral argument is DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-30422

Filed Date: 9/18/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/18/2023