Summary Calendar ROMONA RENA MAYEAUX v. Clear Creek Independent School District

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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. 08-40012
Summary Calendar
_____________________
ROMONA RENA MAYEAUX,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CLEAR CREEK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(3:05-CV-262)
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Romona Rena Mayeaux appeals from the district
court’s summary judgment dismissing with prejudice her race-based
employment discrimination case against Defendant-Appellee Clear Creek
Independent School District (“CCISD”), and also appeals from the district
court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Mayeaux
contends that the district court erred in concluding that she had failed to
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 30, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

1 50 U.S.C. App. § 522(b).
2
establish the presence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
CCISD’s reasons for not renewing her teaching contract were pretext for a
racially discriminatory motive, and also erred in failing to grant her a stay
based on the Servicemember Civil Relief Act.1 We affirm.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, including the
substantial record from the district court, the law and facts as related in the
appellate briefs of the parties, and the Order granting Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment signed by the district court on March 26, 2007. As for
Mayeaux’s assertion that the district court applied the wrong standard in
testing the summary judgment evidence for pretext after concluding that
Mayeaux had made a prima facie case and that CCISD had proffered a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not renewing her employment
contract, we simply find no error in the handling of that issue by the district
court. In its opinion, the district court painstakingly laid out the facts
presented by CCISD and those presented by Mayeaux on each of her specific
allegations of pretext and reached conclusions on each, with which we agree.
In short, each of the particular deficiencies claimed by Mayeaux were shown
by CCISD to be valid and Mayeaux’s evidence to the contrary was insufficient
to create a genuine issue of material fact. The district court applied the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
correct standard in reaching its summary judgment conclusion. We affirm
the court’s dismissal of Mayeaux’s action with prejudice for essentially the
reasons set forth by that court in its aforesaid Order.
Mayeaux’s claim of error regarding the denial of a continuation is even
more lacking in merit. Both original and successor counsel for Mayeaux were
afforded more than sufficient time to conduct discovery, mediation, and all
other pretrial activities, and additional postponements were made and time
given based on the change in counsel for Mayeaux and on everything else
required in advance of summary judgment (as distinguished from trial, which
would have been sufficiently postponed had trial been required). Given the
chronology of all that happened in the district court, Mayeaux’s claim that
any harm or prejudice resulted from the district court’s failure to grant
additional extensions, delays, or postponements is not supported by the
record.
The district court’s summary judgment in favor of CCISD, dismissing
Mayeaux’s action with prejudice, and all other rulings of that court, are, in all
respects,
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --