Johnson v. Univ TX Med Br Galv

*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 01-40069
Summary Calendar
MARILYN KAY JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH,
AT GALVESTON - MANAGED CARE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(G-99-CV-588)
July 25, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiff, Marilyn Kay Johnson, was employed as a
laboratory technician at a prison hospital facility operated by the
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (“UTMB”). UTMB
installed a palm scanning device by which employees would check in

-- 1 of 3 --

2
and out of the laboratory in order to discourage a practice of
employees signing in and out for each other which was becoming
widespread. Johnson declined to use the palm reader because of her
religious beliefs that the device was capable of scanning and
sensing the “mark of the beast” as described in the Book of
Revelations of the Christian Bible. Johnson was allowed to
continue signing in and out by signature while an investigation was
being conducted to determine whether there was any manner in which
her objections could be accommodated. Before any final decision or
resolution was reached, Johnson “retired” from the employment and
received a retirement party on her last day. Several months later,
Johnson initiated claims under Title VII that she had been
discriminated against because of her religious beliefs and
ultimately brought suit against UTMB in the federal district court
in Galveston. UTMB answered and shortly thereafter filed a motion
for summary judgment which was referred to the magistrate judge for
report and recommendation. The magistrate judge filed his report
and recommendation that the motion for summary judgment should be
granted and suit dismissed. Johnson filed objections and the
report and recommendation was reviewed de novo by the district
judge. The district judge adopted the report and the suit was
dismissed. Johnson timely appealed.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,
the reply brief and relevant portions of the record itself. For
the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his report and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
recommendation filed October 27, 2000, the district judge was
correct in entering an order of dismissal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --