Lazdowski v. Potter

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10908
Summary Calendar
WALTER P. LAZDOWSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CV-118
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Walter P. Lazdowski filed suit against his former employer
to seek redress for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The district court dismissed his suit, and this appeal ensued.
Lazdowski argues that the district court erred in granting the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his retaliation
claims, which sought relief for acts that occurred in 2002.
Lazdowski has not shown that the district court erred in

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-10908
-2-
dismissing these claims, as he has not established that he was
subjected to an adverse employment action that was meant to
retaliate against him for engaging in protected activity. See
Messer v. Meno, 130 F.3d 130, 140 (5th Cir. 1997).
Lazdowski likewise has not shown that the district court
erred in determining that his claims that related to events that
occurred in 1997 were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
To the extent that Lazdowski contends that the district court
lacked the authority to raise this doctrine sua sponte, he is
wrong. See Carbonell v. Louisiana Dep’t of Health & Human
Resources, 772 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 1985). To the extent that
Lazdowski argues that the district court erred in determining
that his 1997 claims should be dismissed because they arose from
the same nucleus of operative facts as the claim asserted in his
2000 suit, he is likewise wrong. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. St.
Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La., Inc., 37 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir.
1994).
Lazdowski has shown no error in the judgment of the district
court. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --