Garrett v. Celanese Corp

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
June 22, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________
No. 03-11023
Summary Calendar
______________________
CHARLENE GARRETT
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
CELANESE CORPORATION
Defendant-Appellee
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
(No. 3:02-CV-1485-K)
___________________________________________________
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charlene Garrett sued Celanese Corporation alleging claims of
racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., racial discrimination and
retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and defamation under Texas law.
The district court granted Celanese’s motion to dismiss the suit
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on
Garrett’s failure to state a claim.
We hold that the district court correctly dismissed Garrett’s

-- 1 of 2 --

claims for the reasons given by the district court. Garrett
further argues that the district court should have granted her
leave to amend her complaint before granting Celanese’s motion to
dismiss. While Garrett could have amended her complaint once as a
matter of right, she did not exercise that right. She only made
cursory mention of a request to amend her pleadings in her
opposition to Celanese’s motion to dismiss, and this court has
previously held that a request made in this manner does not require
the district court to grant leave to amend. McKinney v. Irving
Independent School District, 309 F.3d 308, 315 (5th Cir. 2002).
Further, Garrett never apprised the district court or this court of
any facts that she would have added to her complaint that would
have sufficiently stated a claim upon which relief could be
granted. Thus, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision granting
Celanese’s motion to dismiss.

-- 2 of 2 --