UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60686 Summary Calendar

WILLIE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (3:00-CV-15-LN) ___________________________________________________________________ January 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie Washington contests, pro se, the adverse summary judgment

on his federal and state law claims. Washington, an employee of

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., brought this action against

Communication Workers of America (CWA), claiming: (1) racial

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and

; (2) breach of a collective bargaining

agreement between CWA and BellSouth; and (3) negligent and/or

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Summary judgment was granted because: (1) service of process on

an affiliated, but autonomous, local union did not effect service

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. upon CWA; (2) even if CWA was properly served, service was made more

than 120 days after the complaint was filed; and (3) in the

alternative, no genuine issue of material fact remained as to any

claim and CWA was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Washington v. Communication Workers of America, No. 3:00-CV-15-LN, at

3-5 (S.D. Miss. 26 July 2001) (Washington-USDC).

We review a summary judgment de novo, applying the identical

standard used by the district court. Stewart v. Murphy,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1999). Summary

judgment should be granted if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as

a matter of law”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). “We view the pleadings and

summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant.” Stewart,

.

In his brief, Washington does not mention, much less challenge

the insufficient service of process ruling. Therefore, we need not

address this issue, as we do not “consider issues or arguments not

raised in the appellant’s brief”. Blanchard v. Forrest,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1996).

Accordingly, the summary judgment is

AFFIRMED.

2