Kunkel vs. Alamo Commty Clge, (5th Cir. 1998)

Docket Number:97-50761
CONTENT

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 97-50761 Summary Calendar DR. NORLENE KUNKEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; DR. BYRON R. SKINNER Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas (SA-96-CV-20) March 20, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * : Plaintiff Norlene Kunkel (Kunkel), a white female, served as Dean of Li b eral Studies at Palo Alto College, a part of the Alamo Community College District (ACCD), from January 1989 until August 31, 1993. The ACCD Board of Trustees chose not to renew Kunkel§§ 1981 and 1983; (3) Article 1, §8 of the Texas Constitution; (4) th e Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA); and (5) Texas common law breach of contract. Kunkel also sued Skinner for (1) violation of her civil rights under §§ 1983 and 1985; (2) tortious interference with contracts and (3) conspiracy to commit tortiou s interference. The district court, accepting the magistrateÂ’s memorandum and recommendation, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of KunkelÂ’s claims. As Kunkel did not raise or argue any issues in her initial brief with respect to her claims against Skinner, she has abandoned these claims. Webb v. Investacorp, Inc. , 89 F.3d 252, n.2 (5th Cir. 1996); C inel v. Connick , 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994) (any issue inadequately briefed or raised only in the reply brief is considered abandoned). After carefully reviewing the briefs, record excerpts, and the relevant portions of the record itself, we affirm the district courtÂ’s grant of summary judgment with respect to KunkelÂ’s remain ing claims against the ACCD for essentially the same reasons stated in the magistrateÂ’s Memorandum and Recommendation and adopted by the district court on August 11, 1997.