
    Billy CRUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SOUTHWEST CONVENIENCE STORES, L.L.C., doing business as 7-Eleven, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-10466
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 10, 2014.
    Joseph Craig Johnston, Attorney, Johnston & Miller, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Steven Lee Hughes, Mark Dalton Dore, Mounce, Green, Myers, Safi, Paxson & Galatzan, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Billy Cruse filed a Title VII claim against Defendant-Appellee Southwest Convenience Stores, L.L.C. (“7-Eleven”), alleging that 7-Eleven’s termination of his employment was motivated by race. 7-Eleven asserts that Cruse was fired for violating a company rule prohibiting confrontation with customers. Cruse replies that the violation of the non-confrontation rule was pretextual. The case turns on whether there is a disputed issue of material fact regarding pretext. The district court thought not and granted summary judgment to 7-Eleven.

We AFFIRM for essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its opinion granting summary judgment. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     