Perkins v. City of Baton Rouge, 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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 26, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30984
ROLAND PERKINS
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CITY OF BATON ROUGE ET AL,
Defendants,
PAT BONANNO, BOBBY ACHORD, and JOHN LAWTON
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 3:01-cv-87-B)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*1

-- 1 of 2 --

Reviewing the summary judgment order de novo, we reverse the magistrate
judge’s order with respect to race discrimination for the following reasons:
1. In denying summary judgment on the race discrimination claim, the magistrate
judge’s order cites to two pages of the Bonanno deposition establishing that the
individual defendants had supervisory authority over the plaintiff. There is no
citation to evidence showing dissimilar treatment based on race.
2. In his brief, the appellee cites to the affidavit of Clarence Gooding. Previously,
Gooding joined with Perkins in filing a complaint with the EEOC. In his affidavit,
Gooding explains that he believes night service duty was added to his warrant
serving responsibilities “in retaliation for having filed the EEOC complaint.”
Gooding does not explain how, or if, any Caucasian officers were exempted from
this new responsibility.
3. After reviewing the record de novo, the court does not see evidence of race
discrimination. Appellants were entitled to summary judgment.
Reversed and Remanded.

-- 2 of 2 --