
    Louatrice HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D. ANDERSON CANCER CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 07-20584.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 2, 2008.
    
      Shalanda Deshon Moore, Willie & Associates, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Lars Hagen, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Louatrice Henderson appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of her employment discrimination and retaliation claims against Defendant-Appellee University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (“M.D. Anderson”) and one of its supervisory managers, Anne Speed. We affirm.

Henderson is a black female, approximately 50 years of age, who had worked in M.D. Anderson’s Human Resources Department since 1997 when she saw her job eliminated in a far-reaching departmental reorganization. She thereafter failed to obtain renewed employment with M.D. Anderson in its rehiring and reassignment program for those similarly situated to Henderson as a result of that reorganization. She was, however, considered, along with others, through that comprehensive process which included interviews with and recommendations by a three-person interview committee comprising a black female superior and two other M.D. Anderson employees who were older than Henderson. Among the similarly situated employees who were rehired or reassigned were several black females, and among those who, like Henderson, were not were several white employees, including some younger than Henderson.

The recommendations of the interview committee were forwarded to Speed who, in almost every instance, followed the committee’s recommendations. In Henderson’s case, the black female member of the interview committee testified that Henderson had not interviewed well and was lacking in other particulars.

After extensive consideration of the large volume of data assembled in the record of this case and due consideration of the positions advanced by the opposing parties, the district court filed a comprehensive Memorandum Opinion and Order in which the court analyzed the situation and ultimately granted the summary judgment motions of M.D. Anderson and Speed, dismissing all of Henderson’s claims not previously eliminated.

We have now reviewed in detail the record on appeal and the briefs filed by counsel for the parties, as a result of which we are satisfied that the rulings and holdings of the district court from which Henderson appeals should be affirmed for essentially the reasons set forth by the court in its opinion.

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.
     