Pourgholam v. Adv Telemarketing

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-10502
Summary Calendar
SHAHLA POURGHOLAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ADVANCED TELEMARKETING CORPORATION,
d/b/a AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:01-CV-2764-H)
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Shahla Pourgholam, proceeding pro se,
appeals myriad rulings of the district court, including summary
judgment dismissals of some claims and dismissal of others based on
a jury verdict unfavorable to Pourgholam. The plethora of claims
advanced by Pourgholam against Defendant-Appellee Advanced
Telemarketing Corporation (“ATC”) may be broadly categorized as
workplace or employment discrimination involving, variously,
harassment, hostile environment, supervisor harassment complaints,
retaliation, and on and on, implicating national origin, race, and

-- 1 of 2 --

2
sex. We have patiently waded through Pourgholam’s multifarious
allegations, conclusional statements, and largely contradicted
assertions; and we have carefully reviewed the many rulings of the
district court, whether evidentiary, summary judgment, or the like.
In the end, we are convinced that the district court committed no
reversible error in any of its dispositions of the issues
presented.
Moreover, our combing of the record on appeal and our review
of the applicable law, as presented in the brief of ATC on appeal
and on the basis of our own independent research, convinces us
beyond peradventure that —— separate and apart from her filing and
prosecution of this action in the district court —— Pourgholam’s
appeal to this court is wholly lacking in merit and thus is
frivolous as a matter of law. But for Pourgholam’s pro se status,
we might well have addressed the issue of sanctions for a frivolous
appeal on our own motion. Pourgholam is cautioned that any further
prolongation of this contumacious litigation could expose her to
sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --