Ramroop v. Cooper Cameron Corp, et al

*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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
October 3, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 06-20311
Summary Calendar
BHIM RAMROOP
Plaintiff - Appellant
VERSUS
COOPER CAMERON CORP.; FRED HOLLAND
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston
4:05-CV-1681
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant, Bhim Ramroop (Ramroop) challenges the district
court’s dismissal on summary judgment of his employment
discrimination and retaliation claims against his employer, Cooper
Cameron, following his termination from employment with that
company. Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court

-- 1 of 3 --

2
in its memorandum and order of March 20, 2006, we modify the
court’s judgment in one respect and as modified affirm the
judgment.
In summary, the record fully supports the district court’s
determinations that:
1. Ramroop was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons - his aggressive and disruptive behavior over a period
of several months - for which he was warned both verbally and
in writing.
2. Ramroop failed to produce summary judgment evidence that
Cooper Cameron’s stated reasons for termination were
pretextual or that Ramroop’s FMLA leave was a motivating
factor in his termination.
3. Similarly, the record demonstrates that Ramroop’s termination
had nothing to do with his EEOC charge of discrimination filed
several months before his termination.
4. The district court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over appellant’s state law assault claim asserted
against one of his superiors, Fred Holland. The district
court inadvertently overlooked expressly dealing with the
related state law assault claim appellant asserted against
Cooper Cameron. We are satisfied that this was an oversight
and that the district court intended to decline jurisdiction
over this claim also. This was well within the discretion of
the district court.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing
petitioner’s federal claims against Cooper Cameron is AFFIRMED.
We modify the judgment to reflect a dismissal without prejudice of
the plaintiff’s state law assault claims against Cooper Cameron and
Holland and as modified we also affirm that judgment.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

-- 3 of 3 --