Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Lupe Picasso v. City of Nacogdoches, Texas
Lupe Picasso v. City of Nacogdoches, Tex., 426 F. App'x 232 (5th Cir. 2011)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2011-02-01
- Topic
- general
Case: 10-40322 Document: 00511368032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 1, 2011 No. 10-40322 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk LUPE PICASSO Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF NACOGDOCHES, TEXAS Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:08-CV-149 Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Lupe Picasso, a former employee of Defendant-Appellee City of Nacogdoches, Texas, appeals the district court’s March 2, 2010 take- nothing judgement. That judgment was rendered pursuant to the court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of even date following a bench trial on Picasso’s employment claims.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lupe Picasso v. City of Nacogdoches, Texas. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
Plaintiff-Appellant Lupe Picasso, a former employee of Defendant-Appellee City of Nacogdoches, Texas, appeals the district court’s March 2, 2010 take-nothing judgement. That judgment was rendered pursuant to the court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of even date following a bench trial on Picasso’s employment claims. Her action was grounded in allegations that discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy, race, and national origin, as well as retaliation, culminated in her being fired from her job at the City’s animal shelter.
We have reviewed the briefs and record excerpts of the parties, including the extensive analysis of the case presented by the parties at the bench trial, as set forth in the district court’s opinion. As a result, we are convinced that the district court correctly disposed of Picasso’s case and committed no reversible error in the course of doing so. Accordingly, the judgement of that court is, in all respects,
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.