Hurst v. Transcon Gas Pipe

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-31021
Summary Calendar
MARSHALL RAY HURST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS CORPORATION,
doing business as Williams Gas Pipeline-Transco,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(00-CV-725-D)
_________________________________________________________________
March 3, 2003
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marshall Ray Hurst appeals the summary judgment awarded
Transcontinental against Hurst's race discrimination claims.
Pertinent to this appeal, the district court held, inter alia, that
Hurst had failed to establish a prima facie employment
discrimination claim because: (1) he was not qualified for the
position of maintenance specialist; (2) he made only conclusory
allegations concerning Transcontinental’s systematic failure to

-- 1 of 2 --

train black employees; and (3) two alleged racial slurs by a
Transcontinental employee did not suffice to create a hostile work
environment. The district court also held Hurst had failed to
establish a retaliation claim because: (1) he suffered no adverse
employment action; and (2) assuming arguendo such an action
occurred, he failed to establish a causal connection between it and
his protected activity.
No authority need be cited for the rule that a summary
judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the same analysis as did the
district court, including all inferences being in favor of the non-
movant. Such judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
Essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s
opinion, summary judgment was proper.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --