Summary Calendar DANIEL ABRAHAM LORENZ v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
April 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
06-51024
Summary Calendar
DANIEL ABRAHAM LORENZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio
No. 5:05-CV-319
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Abraham Lorenz (Appellant) appeals
the district court’s judgment stemming from an employment
discrimination suit. We AFFIRM.
In March 2003, Appellant was hired as a cashier by Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. After working for several months, Appellant began
wearing a priest’s shirt and collar. In addition to the priestly

-- 1 of 3 --

2
attire, he sometimes would arrive at work wearing a beret and a
court jester or joker’s hat. In December 2003, Appellant
transferred to a position of an overnight stocker. He then began
wearing a Muslim headdress or “kaffiyeh” to work. Also, he wore a
chain around his waist with multiple crosses, a necklace with a
crucifix, and various symbols attached to his person, including
anarchy and peace symbols.
After receiving customer complaints regarding Appellant’s
attire, Manager Steven Shadrock met with Appellant. Shadrock
informed Appellant his attire did not comply with Wal-Mart’s dress
code policy. Shadrock informed Appellant that he could wear the
kaffiyeh but not the priestly attire to work. Nonetheless, despite
repeated warnings and disciplinary action, Appellant continued to
wear the priestly attire to work. Ultimately, Appellant was
terminated for his failure to comply with the dress code.
Proceeding pro se, Appellant filed the instant lawsuit against
Wal-Mart, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title
VII, infliction of emotional distress, libel and slander. Appellee
filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b). The magistrate judge issued a memorandum and recommendation
to: (1) grant the motion to dismiss with respect to the Title VII
claim for religious harassment, claims for libel and slander, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (2) deny the
motion to dismiss the claim for failure to provide religious

-- 2 of 3 --

3
accommodation. Over Appellant’s objections, the district court
entered an order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Appellee also filed a motion for summary judgment, and the
magistrate judge, after careful consideration, recommended that the
motion be granted as to the remaining failure-to-accommodate and
discrimination claims. Over the Appellant’s objections, the
district court accepted the recommendation and granted summary
judgment. Appellant moved for reconsideration, and the district
court denied the motion. Appellant appeals pro se.
Our de novo review of the Rule 12(b) and summary judgment
dismissals convinces us that the court below correctly issued the
orders and granted judgment. In this regard, we affirm essentially
for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s orders dated
March 1, 2006 and May 24, 2006. Additionally, Appellant has not
shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
motion to reconsider or in excluding the belatedly submitted
declaration.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --