IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 01-10329 _______________

STEVE MIDDLETON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BALL-FOSTER GLASS CONTAINER COMPANY, L.L.C.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas m 3:99-CV-964-P _________________________

January 16, 2002

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, ment on his claims of discrimination and re- Circuit Judges. taliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and retaliation under the Texas Labor PER CURIAM:* Code. We have reviewed the briefs and perti- nent portions of the record and have heard the Steve Middleton appeals a summary judg- arguments of counsel.

We conclude that the district court was * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has correct in ascertaining that Middleton was nei- determined that this opinion should not be published ther disabled nor perceived as such and that and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. there was no retaliation. The inability to per- form a particular job does not constitute a sub- stantial limitation on the major activity of working. See generally Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, No. 00-1089,

(U.S. Jan. 8, 2002).

The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its comprehensive memorandum opin- ion and order entered on February 2, 2001.

2