Giles v. University of MS, et al

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60659
Summary Calendar
JIMMY D. GILES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI; ROBERT
KHAYAT; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF STATE
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING; RICKI
R. GARRETT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:99-CV-125-P-A
--------------------
May 21, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jimmy D. Giles appeals the district court’s summary-
judgment dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit, which challenged
the constitutionality of a ban on flagstaffs at sporting events
imposed by the University of Mississippi.
Giles argues that the district court erred in striking a
law-review essay and several news accounts he submitted. Giles has
shown no manifest error in the district court’s evidentiary ruling.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-60659
-2-
See Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989 F.2d 822, 824 (5th Cir.
1993).
Giles argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment to the defendants. Having reviewed the record, we
cannot agree. See Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp., 936 F.2d
805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991). We conclude that the ban on flagstaffs
did not impinge on expressive conduct protected by the First
Amendment. See Jones v. Collins, 132 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (5th Cir.
1998). Even if it did, the ban would pass muster under United
States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).
Giles attempts to raise arguments, concerning a due-
process claim and the district court’s dismissal of the Board of
Trustees of State Institutions for Higher Learning, for the first
time in his reply brief. By not making these arguments in his
initial brief, he waived them. See United States v. Bullock, 71
F.3d 171, 178-79 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, Giles has waived any
appeal against the Board of Trustees and Ms. Garrett by failing to
brief their involvement in the facts underlying this case.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --