From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tillman v. Southern Wood Preserving

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 28, 2009
330 F. App'x 491 (5th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 09-60021 Summary Calendar.

July 28, 2009.

Alfreda Tillman Bester, Tillman Bester Associates, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jerrald L. Shivers, The Kullman Firm, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, No. 2:07-CV-170.

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.


Plaintiff-appellant Michael Tillman appeals the district court's grant of a partial summary judgment in this Title VII suit in which he alleges that his employer retaliated against him for filing a previous discrimination suit, created a hostile work environment, and constructively discharged him. The district court's order, denominated "Judgment," dismissed Tillman's constructive discharge claim and his claims based on events occurring before September 17, 2005. Other claims remain to be adjudicated. As Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides, "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . does not end the action as to any of the claims. . . ." Although the district court did enter a judgment on the claims that it disposed of, the court did not expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay, as required by Rule 54(b). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction and this appeal is DISMISSED.

Appeal DISMISSED. Costs shall be borne by Tillman.


Summaries of

Tillman v. Southern Wood Preserving

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 28, 2009
330 F. App'x 491 (5th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Tillman v. Southern Wood Preserving

Case Details

Full title:Michael TILLMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SOUTHERN WOOD PRESERVING OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jul 28, 2009

Citations

330 F. App'x 491 (5th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Tillman v. Southern Wood Preserving

This court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court had not expressly determined, as…