
    Adam W. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SVC MANUFACTURING INC., doing business as The Gatorade Company & Quaker Oats Company, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-10429
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 11, 2011.
    John Edward Wall, Jr., Law Offices of John E. Wall Jr., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Lisa A. Dreishmire, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Adam W. Davis (“Davis”) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment dismissing his claims under Title VII against his employer, Defendant-Appellee SVC Manufacturing Inc. (“SVC”). Reviewing the record de novo, Williams v. Wynne, 533 F.3d 360, 365 (5th Cir.2008), we affirm.

Assuming arguendo that Davis made out a prima facie case of race discrimination, he has failed to meet his burden to show that SVC’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating his employment was pretext. Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir.2007) (outlining the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework for analyzing Title VII cases). He contends that SVC failed to follow its own policy when it refused to allow him to enter the Employee Assistance Program instead of firing him. But “[a] defendant’s failure to follow its own policy is not probative of discriminatory animus in absence of proof that the plaintiff was treated differently than other non-minority employees because Title VII does not protect employees from the arbitrary employment practices of their employer, only their discriminatory impact.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). And, aside from Davis’s conclusory statements that he believed he was treated differently because of his race, he has adduced no evidence to demonstrate racial animus. Auguster v. Vermilion Parish Sch. Bd., 249 F.3d 400, 403 (5th Cir.2001) (internal quotation omitted) (“This court has consistently held that an employee’s ‘subjective belief of discrimination’ alone is not sufficient to warrant judicial relief.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     