Bush v. Brandon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 13, 2025
• Docket: 24-60319
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-60319 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 24-60319 March 13, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Terry Bush,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Boris Brandon, Director of Facility-Harlow’s Casino; Roscoe Green, General Manager/President-Harlow’s Casino; SW Gaming, L.L.C.; Churchill Downs, Incorporated, Headquarters; Harlow’s Casino Hotel and Spa,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:23-CV-147 ______________________________

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Terry Bush sued his employer and two of its employees, alleging various claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and state law. On the defendants’ motions, to which

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-60319 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2025

No. 24-60319

Bush did not respond, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. On appeal, Bush challenges only the dismissal of his retaliation claim under the ADEA and has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of his other claims. See Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008). As an initial matter, we are unpersuaded by the appellees’ assertion that we should treat Bush’s contentions as wholly forfeited; rather, we consider his arguments challenging the grounds for the district court’s dismissal of his ADEA retaliation claim. See Kaswatuka v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 7 F.4th 327, 329-31 (5th Cir. 2021). Nevertheless, we do not reach Bush’s arguments that he raises for the first time in his reply brief. See Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1437 (5th Cir. 1989). As to the ADEA retaliation claim, we agree with the district court that Bush’s complaint was conclusory and lacked sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief. See Norsworthy v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.4th 332, 336-37 (5th Cir. 2023); Raggs v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 278 F.3d 463, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED.