Kathy MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF HOUSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT; David Swan; Chief Jack Williams, Defendants-Appellees, 399 F. App'x 905

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Kathy Matthews appeals the

summary judgment dismissal of her claims for retaliation under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 451.001, et seq., and race, sex, age, and disability discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.; and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Matthews complains that the district court disregarded her evidence and instead made credibility determinations. She asserts that she provided evidence to support her claims of discrimination.

An initial and dispositive problem is that Matthews fails to provide citations to portions of the record to support her assertions. The

summary judgment ruling and assertions Matthews raises on appeal involve record-intensive inquiries. By failing to cite to the record, Matthews has waived consideration of her claims and failed to show that the district court erred in granting the motion for

summary judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Cf. Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Even if we consider Matthews’ claims, the pleadings and evidence do not raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 464 (5th Cir.1996); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

Largely for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Memorandum and Recommendation, which was adopted by the district court, we conclude that all of Matthews’ claims are time-barred, unsupported by a prima facie case, or lack evidence of a necessary element. Matthews’ appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. In light of the foregoing, her motion for the production of transcripts at government expense is denied. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED. 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R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.