Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Larry Christmas, Jr. v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.

12-60536·Judge: Smith, Prado, Higginson·Attorney: Larry D. Christmas, Jr., Pascagoula, MS, pro se., Brooks Eason, Ceejaye S. Peters, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Ber-kowitz, P.C., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.0 citations

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Case: 12-60536 Document: 00512201228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED April 8, 2013 No. 12-60536 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

LARRY D. CHRISTMAS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi No. 1:10-CV-446

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

Larry Christmas, Jr., pro se, appeals a summary judgment and various orders entered in his suit against his former employer, Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, for retaliation, discrimination, wrongful termination, and emotional dis-

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-60536 Document: 00512201228 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2013

No. 12-60536

tress in connection with his suspension and termination. In a comprehensive order entered June 5, 2012, the district court carefully explained why none of Christmas’s claims has merit. In short, the court observed that “[a]ll of the summary judgment evidence before the Court demonstrates that Christmas was suspended due to a perceived threat that he would engage in workplace violence, and he was terminated due to excessive absences for which he failed to provide timely excuses.” We have reviewed the record and the briefs and conclude that the district court was correct, its reasoning sound. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED. Christmas’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying, as moot, his motion to strike the defendant’s brief is DENIED.

2