
    Versa BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH PANOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT; The Excellence Group, Limited Liability Corporation; Bob Strebeck, Conservator, North Panola School District, in His Official and Individual Capacities; Lucinda Carter, Former Superintendent, North Panola School District, in Her Official and Individual Capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-60685.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 31, 2011.
    Joseph Robert Murray, II, Harrison Law Office, Ripley, MS, Walter Brent Mcbride, Esq., Mcbride Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Tupelo, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    James H. Stock, Jr., Esq., Robbin Wilson Hutton, Esq., Weintraub Stock, P.C., Memphis, TN, John Max Edwards, Jr., Esq., Attorney, Pontotoc, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Versa Brown was discharged as a high school principal and sued the school district, school officials, and a private educational-enrichment group under various state and federal theories. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment, explaining its reasoning in a thorough and convincing memorandum opinion, Brown v. N. Panola Sch. Dist., No. 2:09-CV-102, 2010 WL 3001914, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76419 (N.D.Miss. July 28, 2010).

We have reviewed the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law and have heard the arguments of counsel. Because there is no error, we affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

While this matter was pending on appeal, the Supreme Court decided Staub v. Proctor Hospital, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011), which addresses the so-called “cat’s paw” theory of employer liability regarding actions by supervisors. We have sua sponte examined Staub and find nothing in it that affects our conclusion that summary judgment was proper. We express no view on what legal standard applies to cat’s paw claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in light of Staub.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     