IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-60886 Summary Calendar _____________________

RICHARD BARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI; ET AL.,

Defendants,

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI; ROBERT KHAYAT, Chancellor of the University of Mississippi; PETE BOONE, Former Athletic Director of the University of Mississippi; TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Head Football Coach of the University of Mississippi; DON WOOD, Policeman of the University of Mississippi; CALVIN SELLERS, Policeman of the University of Mississippi; ANDY MULLINS, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi; DON FRUGE, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi; CAROLYN STATON, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi; DICK MULLENDORE, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi; GLORIA KELLUM, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi; GERALD WALTON, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi; MAURICE EFINK, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi; REX DELOACH, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi; THOMAS WALLACE, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi; ED MEEK, Member of the Chancellor’s Cabinet of the University of Mississippi, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:97-CV-211-B-A _________________________________________________________________ August 18, 2000

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Barrett appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his

complaint brought pursuant to

. In his complaint,

Barrett challenged the constitutionality of the University

defendants’ game management policies, which prohibited spectators

from carrying sticks and large flags or banners into the

University’s football stadium during athletic contests.

Barrett first avers in a conclusional fashion that the

district court erred in striking the affidavits and other documents

offered in support of his opposition to the motion for summary

judgment. There was no error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e);

Geiserman v. MacDonald,

(5th Cir. 1990).

Barrett contends further that the district court erred in

granting summary judgment in favor of the University defendants.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and hold that the

district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the

University defendants. As the record stands, there was no genuine

* 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.

2 issue as to any material fact, and the University defendants were

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

(1986). The district court did not err in

finding that Barrett’s flag waving was not expressive conduct and

that the game management policies were constitutional.

Finally, Barrett avers that the district court erred in

staying discovery. This court reviews a district court's discovery

orders for abuse of discretion. McKethan v. Texas Farm Bureau,

(5th Cir. 1993). Because the University defendants

raised qualified immunity as a defense, the district court could

not allow discovery to proceed until this question was resolved.

Siegert v. Gilley,

(1991). Thus, the district

court’s decision to stay discovery was not an abuse of discretion.

A F F I R M E D.

3