holding that appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 existed when the district court dismissed all claims without prejudice and, on the same day, entered final judgment
How later courts described this case
- holding that appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 existed when the district court dismissed all claims without prejudice and, on the same day, entered final judgment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 25-50078 Document: 25-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2025
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 25-50078 May 27, 2025
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________
Clerk
Wayne M. Ross,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Oracle America,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:24-CV-1053
______________________________
Before Dennis, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Wayne M. Ross, proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s without-prejudice-dismissal of his lawsuit against his former
employer, Oracle America. Oracle terminated Ross’s employment as a
Business Development Consultant in 2023, allegedly in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. To state a claim for relief under the ADA
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 25-50078 Document: 25-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2025
No. 25-50078
for employment discrimination, Ross had to allege that he was: (1) disabled
within the meaning of the ADA; (2) qualified for the job; and (3) fired
because of his disability. See Gosby v. Apache Indus. Servs., Inc., 30 F.4th 523,
526 (5th Cir. 2022).
The district court referred the case to the magistrate judge. Because
the magistrate judge had granted Ross leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) obliged the court to review Ross’s complaint and
dismiss it at any time if the court determined the action failed to state a claim.
After screening the complaint, the conscientious magistrate judge ordered
Ross to file a “More Definite Statement that, at a minimum, answer[ed]” the
following questions:
1. Is Ross disabled within the meaning of the ADA? If so, how?
2. What was Ross’s job at Oracle America? Was he qualified for this
job?
3. Was Ross fired because of his disability? If so, how does Ross know
he was fired because of his disability?
Ross complied in substance with the magistrate judge’s order—though not
specifically answering the three listed questions—by filing seventy-seven
pages of evidence. The evidence indicated Ross’s disability as major
depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.
Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation that Ross failed “to allege that he was terminated from his
position at Oracle based on his disability.” Specifically, the magistrate judge
found “Ross did not include any additional factual allegations” in response
to the order for a more definite statement “but rather submitted 77 pages of
evidence as his more definite statement.” Ross’s only evidence material to
the question of whether Oracle fired him because of a disability was a report
from the City of Austin Office of Civil Rights, which found that Oracle fired
2
Case: 25-50078 Document: 25-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/27/2025
No. 25-50078
him “because of his failure to meet performance expectations even when
provided with reasonable accommodations.” Given that Ross had not alleged
any facts to support his claim that Oracle fired him because of his disability
(and in fact provided evidence suggesting the opposite), the magistrate judge
concluded that Ross had “failed to state a claim for employment
discrimination in violation of the ADA.” Accordingly, the magistrate judge
recommended that the district judge dismiss Ross’s claim with prejudice
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). The R&R warned Ross that failure to timely file
written objections would result in only plain error review by the district court.
Ross filed no objection to the R&R. The district court adopted the
R&R after reviewing it for plain error, dismissed Ross’s complaint without
prejudice, and entered final judgment—all on the same day.1 Ross filed a
notice of appeal eight days later. Our review is for plain error. Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420–23, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On appeal, even construing his brief liberally, Ross does not raise any
plain error in the district court’s decision. Nor do we perceive any upon
reviewing the record.
AFFIRMED.
_____________________
1
See Hitchcock v. Cumberland Univ. 403(b) DC Plan, 851 F.3d 552, 557–58 (6th Cir.
2017) (holding that appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 existed when the district
court dismissed all claims without prejudice and, on the same day, entered final judgment).
3