Crow v. HCL America Technologies

Case: 25-40238 Document: 31-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-40238 FILED March 10, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Kennard Crow, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus HCL America Technologies, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CV-749 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Appellant Kennard Crow, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motions for default judgment and grant of summary judgment dismissing his various claims. The district court found that no genuine dispute of material fact existed with respect to Crow’s claims for hostile work environment and sex discrimination, defamation, race discrimination, age discrimination, and

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-40238 Document: 31-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2026

No. 25-40238 retaliation, and dismissed all claims with prejudice except for his hostile work environment and sex discrimination claims. We AFFIRM.

Appellee argues that Appellant has abandoned and waived any challenge to the district court’s rulings on his motion for default judgment and dismissal of his claims in the final judgment. Our court liberally construes briefs of pro se litigants, but pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 to contain a statement of the issues and an argument. Hodge v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Sheriff’s Off., 394 F. App’x 124, 126 (5th Cir. 2010). We have declined to dismiss a pro se appeal on waiver alone when the appellant’s brief contains some argument of trial court error. Abdul-Alim Amin v. Universal Life Ins. Co. of Memphis, Tenn., 706 F.2d 638, 640 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting we have “considered a pro se appellant’s brief despite its technical noncompliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure when it at least argued some error on the part of the district court”).

Crow’s brief contains no such argument and legal authority for district court error and generally restates the factual basis for his claims.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.