IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-60430 _____________________

ONNIE S. LEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SIMPSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; JACK McALPIN, Superintendent, Simpson County Schools, Individually and in his official capacity; KATHERINE WEATHERSBY, Individually and in her official capacity as a member of the school board of the Simpson County School District; DONNIE MADDOX, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the school board of the Simpson County School District; MARSHALL DEAR, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the school board of the Simpson County School District; J. O. SMITH, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the school board of the Simpson County School District; JOHN C. MOORE, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the school board of the Simpson County School District,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson USDC No. 3:99-CV-81-BN _________________________________________________________________ March 8, 2001

Before FARRIS,* JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

After study of the briefs and consideration of the arguments

made by the parties, we are convinced that the district court did

not err in setting aside the jury’s verdict and granting the school

district’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law.

We reach this conclusion because the record supports the

district court’s holding that the plaintiff failed to rebut the

school’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring James

Crain and Gwen Wilborn. There is no evidence that the reasons

given were false or otherwise pretextual.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court, granting

judgment as a matter of law for the defendants, is

A F F I R M E D.

* Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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