Summary Calendar DONALD CARTER, JR; DONALD ARTIS v. AURELIO CASTILLO, Constable

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
__________________
01-10466
Summary Calendar
__________________
DONALD CARTER, JR; DONALD ARTIS
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
AURELIO CASTILLO, Constable and Individually and
in his Official Capacity, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendants
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendant-Appellee
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
3:99-CV-47-X
______________________________________________
December 14, 2001
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Carter, Jr. and Donald Artis, Deputy Constables in
Dallas County, Texas, brought suit in the district court alleging
(1) racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII

-- 1 of 2 --

2
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) retaliation in violation of
their First Amendment rights; (3) violation of the Texas
Whistleblower Act; and (4) a state law claim of intentional
infliction of emotional distress. In a well-reasoned and thorough
opinion, the district court granted summary judgment disposing of
all claims against the defendant-appellee, Constable Aurelio
Castillo and defendant-appellee Dallas County, Texas. Since filing
their appeal, the appellants have dismissed their appeal against
Constable Castillo and their appeal now concerns only Dallas
County, Texas.
Appellants’ brief is indeed brief and sparse. Even when
liberally construed, it complains only of the district court
rulings on their Title VII racial discrimination claims. All other
claims are not briefed and therefore not properly before us for
review. With respect to the Title VII discrimination claims, we
find no error in the district court rulings. We affirm for the
reasons set out in the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the district
court dated February 7, 2001.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --