Alonzo Richardson v. Bossier Casino Venture, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 12, 2019
• Docket: 18-30334
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-30334 Document: 00514831666 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals No. 18-30334 Fifth Circuit

FILED February 12, 2019 ALONZO GERALD RICHARDSON, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

BOSSIER CASINO VENTURE, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:16-CV-1610

Before KING, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Alonzo Gerald Richardson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Bossier Casino Venture, Inc. (BCV). Richardson alleges that BCV subjected him to a hostile work environment based on his sex, race, and color, and retaliated against him after he complained about harassment, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We affirm.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 18-30334 Document: 00514831666 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2019

No. 18-30334 “Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that arguments must be briefed to be preserved.” Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 426 n.24 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993)). The “Argument” section of Richardson’s opening brief states, in its entirety, that: “(1) There is a genuine dispute as to material facts. (2) The material facts would affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. (3) The court did not view the facts drawing all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Richardson asks the court to review the evidence he submitted to the district court, but he does not point to specific facts in the record that would create a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); see also Willis v. Cleco Corp., 749 F.3d 314, 319 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding a claim waived when the appellant failed to “explain, in any perceptible manner, why the facts would allow a reasonable jury to decide in his favor”). Richardson’s claims are inadequately briefed, and therefore forfeited. Id. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.