Crocker v. CenterPoint Energy

Case: 25-20323 Document: 148-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-20323 March 25, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Mitchell Crocker, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus CenterPoint Energy, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-1051 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* After being terminated by CenterPoint Energy, Mitchell Crocker sued for retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12203, retaliation under Texas Labor Code § 21.055, and defamation. The district court granted CenterPoint Energy’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed all of Crocker’s claims, and denied his various motions. The _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-20323 Document: 148-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2026

No. 25-20323 district court determined that Crocker abandoned his ADA retaliation claim, presented no evidence of causation supporting his retaliation claim under Texas law, and presented no evidence of a defamatory statement. The court has carefully reviewed the briefs, records, and applicable law. We find no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment. And because Crocker failed to adequately brief how the district court erred in denying his motions, he has forfeited those challenges. See Nichols v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 495 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir. 2007).

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is AFFIRMED.1

_____________________ Crocker asks the court to take judicial notice of certain adjudicative facts pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Because these facts are not the proper subject of judicial notice, his motions for judicial notice are DENIED.