McAdams v. City of Huntsville

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 1, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 04-20578
Summary Calendar
_______________
JEWEL MCADAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, WALKER COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
m 4:03-CV-1353
______________________________
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pro se plaintiff Jewel McAdams was termi-
nated from her employment with the City of
Huntsville, Texas, after allegedly stealing
money from a cash drawer. After an investiga-
tion that included polygraph examinations and
the conclusion that there had been a pattern of
missing funds when McAdams was working,
she was terminated. After filing a charge of
discrimination with the Texas Commission on
Human Rights, she sued the city, alleging race
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
discrimination and the violation of her consti-
tutional right against self incrimination.1
As the district court noted, however, “Oth-
er than filing this suit, McAdams has not
engaged in steps necessary to prosecute it.”
McAdams failed to respond to requests for
admissions and otherwise neglected to conduct
any discovery or place any evidence in the
record. Consequently, on the city’s motion for
summary judgment, the district court dis-
missed McAdams’s claims and entered judg-
ment in favor of Huntsville. The court then
granted McAdams’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis for purposes of appeal. Mc-
Adams later filed a “Motion To Appeal Peti-
tion to Dismiss,” which the district court
treated as a notice of appeal.2
I.
Pending before this court is McAdams’s
“Motion for Transcript,” which requests an
order directing the city to provide her with a
copy of the transcript of her grievance hearing
held by the city council. We treat this motion
as tantamount to a motion to compel. This
court is not the correct forum in which to
conduct discovery. The proper method for
pursuing this evidence would have been the
filing of a similar motion in the district court
before the discovery cut-off deadline. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a); 16(b). A court of ap-
peals will not consider evidence not presented
to the district court. Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76
F.3d 651, 657 (5th Cir. 1996). McAdams’s
motion is therefore denied.
II.
In its motion for summary judgment, the
city contended that McAdams had failed to
establish even a prima facie case of discrimi-
nation, and even assuming, arguendo, that
such a case could be made, it argued that it has
provided a legitimate non-discriminatory
reason for McAdams’s termination. As the
district court noted, the city “presented evi-
dence as to the basis for its conclusion that
McAdams had taken money from her cash
drawer.” McAdams, on the other hand, “failed
to show any disputed facts supporting her
claim that the City did not actually believe that
allegation but instead used it as a pretext for
an otherwise discriminatory dismissal.” Be-
cause McAdams raised no genuine issues of
material fact, summary judgment was appro-
priate.
Similarly, McAdams failed to enter into the
record any evidence supporting her claims of
deprivation of her Fifth Amendment or due
process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Those
claims were also, therefore, properly dis-
missed.
On appeal, McAdams argues that her fail-
ure to respond to repeated discovery requests
and to the city’s motion for summary judgment
was the result of her eviction from her home
and therefore constituted excusable neglect.3
Nevertheless, the record reflects that either the
plaintiff or someone else named “McAdams”
signed for all of the relevant correspondence,
including the Joint Case Management Plan,1 Although McAdadams’s complaint did not
explicitly reference the operative statutes, the city
and the court have interpreted McAdams’s com-
plaint as alleging violations of title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-(a)(1), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2 A panel of this court denied the city’s motion
to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
3 There is no evidence in the record to confirm
this claim, and it does not appear that McAdams
ever raised this issue with the district court before
entry of judgment.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
discovery requests, and motion for summary
judgment. In the end, regardless of her lack of
response to correspondence, McAdams never
provided any evidence to support her claims.
The judgment is AFFIRMED, and all pend-
ing motions are DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --