F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 27, 2003

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

____________________

No. 02-41209

Summary Calendar ____________________

ROLISHA GOINS

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

HITCHCOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; JOSIE M ORR, Individually and as President of the Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School District; RON MEIER, Individually and as Vice President of the Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School District; DORIS SCURRY-KENNEDY, As an individual and as Secretary for the Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School District; PAT TURNER, As an individual and as a Member of the Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School District; RICKY BOND, As an Individual and as a Member of the Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School District; SHAWN KADLECEK, As an Individual and as a Member of the Board of Education for Hitchcock Independent School District; RUTH A KANE, As an Individual and as Superintendent; BILL BANKS, Individually and as former Superintendent of Hitchcock Independent School District

Defendants - Appellees

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. G-01-CV-498 _________________________________________________________________

Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

This case arises from a claim of sex discrimination

allegedly suffered by Plaintiff-Appellant Rolisha Goins while

serving as a women’s basketball and volleyball coach for

Defendant-Appellee Hitchcock Independent School District

(“H.I.S.D.”). Although separate from another sex discrimination

suit brought by Goins against H.I.S.D. in 1998, this case relates

to a settlement agreement resulting from the 1998 lawsuit and

involves allegations that H.I.S.D., along with the individual

defendants, did not faithfully execute Goins’s employment

contract in the spirit of the settlement agreement.

On appeal, Goins contends that the district court erred in

numerous ways: (1) in failing to enforce its instructions in an

oral hearing; (2) in failing to follow its own scheduling

instructions in another hearing; (3) in issuing a docket control

order; (4) in denying her request for special master, ignoring

her request to amend the complaint, and granting H.I.S.D.’s

Partial Motion to Dismiss; (5) in denying her Motion for

Reconsideration; (6) in striking her Motion to Amend; (7) in

denying her Motion to Recuse; (8) in granting H.I.S.D.’s Motion

for Summary Judgment and denying her Motions for Reconsideration

* 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 and for Leave to Supplement the Motion to Amend the Complaint;

and (9) in granting judgment for H.I.S.D.

The district court extensively reviewed each of the issues

presented on appeal and adequately responded to each one in kind,

even in situations where Defendants’ motions were technically

unopposed due to Goins’s inability to respond to them. Based on

our review of the record, we conclude that Goins cannot establish

reversible error. Therefore, the judgment of the district court

is

AFFIRMED.

3