Barrett v. University of MS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-60886
Summary Calendar
_____________________
RICHARD BARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI; ET AL.,
Defendants,
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI; ROBERT KHAYAT,
Chancellor of the University of Mississippi;
PETE BOONE, Former Athletic Director of the
University of Mississippi; TOMMY TUBERVILLE,
Head Football Coach of the University of
Mississippi; DON WOOD, Policeman of the
University of Mississippi; CALVIN SELLERS,
Policeman of the University of Mississippi;
ANDY MULLINS, Member of the Chancellor’s
Cabinet of the University of Mississippi;
DON FRUGE, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet
of the University of Mississippi; CAROLYN
STATON, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet
of the University of Mississippi;
DICK MULLENDORE, Member of the
Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of
Mississippi; GLORIA KELLUM, Member of the
Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of
Mississippi; GERALD WALTON, Member of the
Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of
Mississippi; MAURICE EFINK, Member of the
Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of
Mississippi; REX DELOACH, Member of the
Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of
Mississippi; THOMAS WALLACE, Member of the
Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of
Mississippi; ED MEEK, Member of the
Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of
Mississippi,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:97-CV-211-B-A
_________________________________________________________________
August 18, 2000
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Barrett appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his
complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In his complaint,
Barrett challenged the constitutionality of the University
defendants’ game management policies, which prohibited spectators
from carrying sticks and large flags or banners into the
University’s football stadium during athletic contests.
Barrett first avers in a conclusional fashion that the
district court erred in striking the affidavits and other documents
offered in support of his opposition to the motion for summary
judgment. There was no error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e);
Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 792-93 (5th Cir. 1990).
Barrett contends further that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of the University defendants.
We have reviewed the briefs and the record and hold that the
district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the
University defendants. As the record stands, there was no genuine
*
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
issue as to any material fact, and the University defendants were
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The district court did not err in
finding that Barrett’s flag waving was not expressive conduct and
that the game management policies were constitutional.
Finally, Barrett avers that the district court erred in
staying discovery. This court reviews a district court's discovery
orders for abuse of discretion. McKethan v. Texas Farm Bureau, 996
F.2d 734, 738 (5th Cir. 1993). Because the University defendants
raised qualified immunity as a defense, the district court could
not allow discovery to proceed until this question was resolved.
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). Thus, the district
court’s decision to stay discovery was not an abuse of discretion.
A F F I R M E D.
3