USA, et al v. State of Mississippi, No. 05-61184 (5th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ December 22, 2006 No. 05-61184 Summary Calendar _____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CYNTHIA FLETCHER; GLORIA JEAN BARNES; DAVID BARNES, Minors, by Rv. THEOTIS SMITH, As Next Friend, Appearing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellees v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; ET AL, Defendants SIMPSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant --------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (3:70-CV-4706) --------------------Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* On appeal, Defendant-Appellant Simpson County School District ( the District ) asks this court to reverse the district court s * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. ruling that denied the District s efforts to be declared unitary and the continuing court-supervised desegregation case against it dismissed. The district court s Memorandum Opinion and Order appealed from granted the District s motion in part, declaring unitary status in the areas of student body compositions, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. It denied unitary status, however, and thereby retained oversight, regarding faculty and staff assignments. The court thus retained jurisdiction under the consent decree and reserved the option to re-evaluate the District s position in one year. Based on our extensive review of the record on appeal and the parties briefs, we perceive no reversible error of fact or law, and therefore affirm the ruling of the district court. AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.