
    Vinson BALLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY; Doctor Marcus A. Chanay, Individually and in his Professional Capacity; Doctor Loria Brown, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; Michael Thomas, Individually and in his Professional Capacity; Doctor Carolyn Myers, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; Wayne Goodwin, Individually and in his Professional Capacity; Pamela Mitchell, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; Robin Pack, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; Doctor Curtis Johnson, Individually and in his Professional Capacity; Francis Horton White, Individually and in her Professional Capacity; Attorney David Buford, Individually and in his Professional Capacity, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 16-60111 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 08/17/2016
    Vinson Ballard, Jackson, MS, Pro Se.
    
      Pope Shannon Mallette, Paul Bowie Watkins, Jr., Oxford, MS.
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Vinson Ballard a/k/a Rev. Vinson Ballard, M.S., proceeding pro se on appeal after being represented by-counsel in the district court, makes largely unintelligible complaints about the proceedings and results of a court supervised and approved settlement of various employment claims between Ballard and Jackson State University, the sole remaining Defendant-Appellee. We have carefully and painstakingly reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the various rulings and orders of the magistrate judge and the district court from which Ballard appears to appeal. As a result of our review, we find no reversible error in any of the proceedings or rulings, and conclude that Plaintiff-Appellant Ballard has had all the procedural and substantive process to which he is due. The orders and rulings from which Ballard appeals are, in all respects,

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         Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     