Summary Calender RICHARD ARIZPE v. RODNEY SLATER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

1 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
No. 99-50931
Summary Calender
RICHARD ARIZPE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
RODNEY SLATER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation;
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. SA-98-CV-610
June 5, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
This case comes before us on appeal from the district
court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s
claims of racial discrimination. Plaintiff complains that the
court erred in granting summary judgment on his disparate
treatment claim, and further erred in ruling that plaintiff had
failed to preserve his adverse impact claim for appeal from an
EEOC-ALJ hearing. Both of these issues were fully addressed in

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
the magistrate judge’s excellent report and recommendation to the
presiding district judge. The magistrate’s detailed and
thoughtful consideration of the case was adopted in full by the
district court. We agree with the magistrate’s conclusions as to
the merits of plaintiff’s Title VII claims in their entirety.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the court’s entry of judgment for the
defendants.
Plaintiff also challenges the impartiality of the magistrate
judge, asserting that she should have recused herself based on a
purported conflict of interest arising from her previous
employment. Plaintiff contends that because the magistrate judge
was formerly employed by the United States Attorney’s Office, the
agency responsible for representing the defendant agency, she
could not hear this case impartially. At no point in the course
of the litigation did plaintiff file a motion to recuse.
The district court addressed plaintiff’s charge of
impartiality in his order accepting the magistrate’s
recommendation. The court noted that the magistrate received her
appointment on June 8, 1998, a month prior to the initiation of
this lawsuit. Furthermore, the magistrate’s government service
did not entail work outside of the criminal division of the
United States Attorney’s Office. We agree with the district
court’s determination that plaintiff’s charge of impartiality is
“just plain silly.”
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --