Pavel Nazarov v. Louisiana State University, et al, No. 10-30587 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-30587 Document: 00511481505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-30587 Summary Calendar May 18, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PAVEL A. NAZAROV, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:08-CV-3978 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 10-30587 Document: 00511481505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2011 No. 10-30587 Pavel Nazarov, a native and citizen of Russia, was fired as a postdoctoral researcher at LSU Health Services Center. He sued the university for national origin discrimination under in various federal and state statutes. The district court granted the university summary judgment, explaining its reasoning in a thorough and convincing opinion, Nazarov v. La. State Univ., 2010 WL 1930074 (E.D. La. May 10, 2010). Nazarov appeals pro se. We have reviewed the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law. Because there is no error, we affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. We address two other issues raised by Nazarov. First, he asserts a new claim on appeal that he held a property right in his employment and that LSU deprived him of that right without due process. Not only has Nazarov failed to cite any caselaw to support that theory, he has also forfeited that claim by failing to raise it in the district court. Black v. N. Panola Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 584, 593 (5th Cir. 2006). We will not consider a new claim on appeal unless the issues involved are purely legal and failure to address the claim would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Id. Second, Nazarov claims he was irreparably harmed by the lack of a transcript of the summary judgment hearing. He has failed to indicate, however, how he was prejudiced. See Veillon v. Exploration Servs., Inc., 876 F.2d 1197, 1200-01 (5th Cir. 1989). If the district court erred by not ordering a transcriptSS which we are not convinced it didSSany error was harmless. Id. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
