                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                     _______________________

                           No. 97-60092
                         Summary Calendar
                     _______________________


PERRY LEWIS EVANS,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                             versus

REGION 8 MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION COMMISSION;
T. E. COTTEN, JR.,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.


_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Southern District of Mississippi
                          (3:96-CV-183LN)
_________________________________________________________________
                         December 8, 1997


Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

          Perry Lewis Evans, plaintiff-appellant, brought suit in

federal district court against both his employer and supervisor

asserting claims for racial discrimination and retaliation under

Title VII and intentional infliction of emotional distress.     The

district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants-

appellees.



     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
          We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo.   See Grimes v. Texas Dept. of Mental Health and Mental

Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir. 1996).   Summary judgment

is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).     Unsubstantiated assertions are not

competent summary judgment evidence.   See Grimes, 102 F.3d at 139.

          Appellant’s brief is devoid of facts or arguments beyond

conclusory allegations supporting his contention that an issue of

material fact exists in this case.       The court has considered

appellant’s claims in light of the briefs and pertinent portions of

the record.   We find no reversible error of fact or law and affirm

for essentially the same reasons stated by the district court.

          AFFIRMED.




                                 2
