Reynolds v. Rumsfeld, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
May 3, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-41490
Summary Calendar
GENE REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; R L
BROWNLEE, Acting Secretary of the Army
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division
Civil No. 5:03-CV-146
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Gene Reynolds appeals from an adverse summary
judgment dismissing his age and race discrimination claims
brought against Appellees. Reynold’s discrimination claims stem
from his not being selected by the army for the position of 19th
Theater Army Area Command Safety and Occupational Health Manager
in Korea. The sole issue presented is Reynold’s claim that the

-- 1 of 2 --

district court erred in its determination that Appellant failed
to present sufficient evidence of pretext to rebut the Army’s
non-discriminatory reasons offered to explain why Appellant was
not selected. Reynolds contends that he presented sufficient
evidence to raise a fact issue as to whether the Army’s proffered
explanation was pre-textual. We reject Appellant’s contention.
Reynolds has not raised a fact issue of pretext nor has he shown
that he was clearly better qualified than the applicant actually
selected for the position involved. Conjecture, speculation, and
Appellant’s subjective beliefs are not relevant evidence. We do
not second-guess the determination made here by the Army. We
affirm essentially for the reasons set forth in the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated August
11, 2004, and District Judge Folsom’s Memorandum Order dated
August 30, 2004, dismissing Appellant’s claim, rejecting
Appellant’s objection to the magistrate report, and adopting the
magistrate report.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --