Halimah Knox v. Louisiana State Dept of Corr, et a, No. 11-31113 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-31113 Document: 00512346487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED August 19, 2013 No. 11-31113 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk HALIMA KNOX, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIXON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; LINDA JENKINS, Master Sergeant Warehouse; ROMONA JACKSON, Master Sergeant - Warehouse; HENRY WONDER, Sergeant - Unit 1; UNKNOWN BISSETT, Sergeant - Unit 2; LANE THOMAS, Assistant Warden - Unit 2; RICHARD COURTNEY, H.R., Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:11-CV-233 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Hamila Knox appeals the judgment of the district court and seeks damages and reinstatement as an employee of the Louisiana * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-31113 Document: 00512346487 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2013 No. 11-31113 Department of Public Safety. She has not presented to this court any legal error by the district court. She complains of a problem with her uniform and also discusses her medical problems, but she has failed to connect any complaint to a material adverse employment action by the defendant state agency. The Referee who considered her appeal to the Civil Service explained the necessity of her relating specific details of discriminatory action to justify any legal recovery, and the district judge repeated that requirement. Her reply brief attempts to do better, but it, too, is largely based on conclusions and is unconnected to any legal claim. Again, there is no error of the district court. 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.