Summary Calendar ALI WARIS v. Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-20001
Summary Calendar
ALI WARIS
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
HARRIS COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES;
HERMINIA PALACIO, Harris County Public Health and Environmental
Services, in Personal and Official Capacity; CHARLES CUNNINGHAM, Harris
County Public Health and Environmental Services, in Personal and Official
Capacity; UMAIR SHAH, Medical Doctor, Harris County Public Health and
Environmental Services, in Personal and Official Capacity; HARRIS COUNTY
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
USDC No. 4:06-CV-1331
Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ali Waris’s employment was terminated seven weeks after he was hired
as a clinic manager for Harris County. The decision to terminate Waris’s
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 4, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-20001
2
employment was based on numerous complaints about his attitude, verbal
attacks, and unprofessional conduct after previous reprimands, including
sending an improper email to his subordinates and supervisors about a member
of the United States Congress who sponsored a public immunization event
through the clinic.
Waris, acting pro se, filed suit alleging discrimination based on race and
national origin and violation of constitutional rights. The district court adopted
the findings and recommendation of a magistrate judge and granted summary
judgment for the Defendants. We agree with the district court that Waris failed
to demonstrate a prima facie case of race or national origin discrimination in
that no evidence of disparate treatment was advanced. Waris also failed to
adequately state any claim for violation of constitutional rights. Finding that
there was no jurisdiction once the Defendants were granted summary judgment,
the district court properly refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
For the reasons adopted by the district court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --