Wells v. Breton Mill Apartments Equity Residential Properties

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 9, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20029
Summary Calendar
DESA MAE WELLS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRETON MILL APARTMENTS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston
4:03-CV-359
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Desa Mae Wells (Wells) appeals from the dismissal of
her claims based on Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. We affirm.
Wells was evicted from her dwelling for failure to pay rent.
She does not complain of the eviction process. Rather, Wells
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
claims that her eviction and/or the subsequent decision not to
renew her lease was based on discrimination or retaliation in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 3601-
3631, and the Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution. The defendants/appellees responded
with a motion to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(6) and also asserted
a nondiscriminatory basis for Well’s eviction; to wit, the
nonpayment of rent. Wells neither responded to the motion to
dismiss or the nondiscriminatory basis asserted by defendants for
her eviction.
The district court deemed the motion to dismiss with respect
to the section 1981 claim unopposed and dismissed the claim and
after a careful review of the pleadings, set forth in detail its
rationale in dismissing Well’s claims. We affirm essentially for
the reasons stated by the district court in its order signed
December 1, 2003. Even if we consider Well’s purported amended
complaint, the complaint remains conclusory and fails to remedy the
deficiencies in the pleadings that properly lead to the dismissal
of Well’s claim.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
2