Gray v. Sage Telecom Inc.

253 F. App'x 402

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order entered October 3, 2006, which cannot be improved upon. The district court, in perhaps an excess of caution, discussed the impact of Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), on claims of retaliation under Title VII. In plaintiff-appellant Shirlene Gray’s appellate brief, that issue is inadequately briefed (as it was in the district court), and in affirming the district court’s judgment, we do not address (because we need not, see L & A Contracting Co. v. Southern Concrete Services, Inc., 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir.1994)) that issue or the district court’s conclusions with respect thereto.

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* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.