Vitatoe v. Kipp

── Vitatoe v. Kipp ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 10, 2026 Category: Civil Rights Case: 25-20255 Document: 86-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-20255 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 10, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Christopher J. Vitatoe, also known as Krisjiannis Clerk Dovageiste, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Kipp, Incorporated, Public Charter School System; Spring Branch Independent School District; Sehba Ali, Chief Executive Officer; Alexis Brown, Formerly Head Principal of KIPP Courage College Prep; Albert White, Former Co-worker; Crystal Batiste, Regional Superintendent at KIPP; Ray Moore, Principal at Landrum Middle School of Spring Branch Independent School District; Melissa Vasquez, Associate Principal at KIPP; Aaliyah Ramos; Audrey Solomon, Human Resources Personnel; Chuck Fimble, Human Resources Personnel; Lori Russell, Human Resources Director, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-5097 ______________________________ Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Case: 25-20255 Document: 86-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 No. 25-20255 Per Curiam: * Christopher Vitatoe was employed at KIPP Courage College Prep. Representing himself, he brought claims against various parties affiliated with the school based on alleged discrimination and retaliation he encountered while employed there. Adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court granted a motion to dismiss all claims. Vitatoe appealed, and we AFFIRM. Vitatoe complained of race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241, deprivation of rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242, tampering with a witness under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, and retaliation against a witness under 18 U.S.C. § 1513. He alleges discriminatory treatment that included termination of his employment, failure to accommodate his disability, unequal terms and conditions of employment, and retaliation. We review for plain error the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim because Vitatoe was “warned of the requirement to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.” Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). We accept all well-pled facts as true and “construe pro se pleadings liberally.” Ricks v. Khan, 135 F.4th 296, 300 (5th Cir. 2025). Here, Vitatoe’s claims were general and conclusory. They did not state sufficient facts regarding what acts or omissions each Defendant committed that would provide the basis for respective claims against _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 2 Case: 25-20255 Document: 86-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 No. 25-20255 particular Defendants. He thus did not plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference