Counts v. Potter

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 21, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-10661
Summary Calendar
BRIAN L. COUNTS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:03-CV-723)
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Brian L. Counts appeals an adverse
judgment of the district court dismissing his employment
discrimination suit in which he alleged that he was fired from his
job as a mailman, pursuant to a June 21, 2001 Notice of Removal,
for poor attendance. Counts argues that Defendant-Appellee’s
stated reason was pretextual, asserting that the real reason for
his termination was retaliation for his filing EEO complaints. We
dismiss this appeal for appellant’s failure adequately to brief his
case.

-- 1 of 2 --

1 Although we dismiss this appeal for inadequate briefing,
our review of the briefs and other parts of the record on appeal
revealed that Counts was not discharged on the basis of
attendance, which was addressed in the June 21, 2001 Notice of
Removal —— matters that were settled between the parties.
Rather, he was fired on the basis of a September 21 Notice of
Removal grounded in his placing unauthorized long distance phone
calls on customers’ accounts. The September Notice is not at
issue in this case.
2
Counts’s appellate brief contains just over one page of
“argument,” is devoid of citation to any relevant legal authority,
and fails to articulate any facts that might insulate him from a
summary judgment of dismissal. Rather, his brief contains a terse
list of references to portions of the district court record which,
we find, identify only pages from his own deposition. Counts fails
to identify any specific evidentiary facts on which he relies, and
fails to explain why his deposition statements should entitle him
to relief.
APPEAL DISMISSED.1

-- 2 of 2 --