DocketNumber： 13-20761
Judges： Reavley, Jones, Prado
Filed Date： 7/10/2014
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/6/2024
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons explained in detail by the court. Despite that careful 25-page disposition of all of the plaintiffs claims, we now have 50 pages of briefs that provide only the same allegations and new *283 legal references but no support for plaintiffs claims. The problem for the plaintiff is the complete lack of any evidence of racial or gender discrimination or unequal treatment, and of any basis for the claim of procedural due process denial. No evidence connects different experience of other teachers with the claims of discrimination and due process. And as for due process, the plaintiff was given legal notice of non-renewal of his contract, and he was given process by the Board of the District and the Commissioner of Education.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.