                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                        _____________________

                             No. 96-20434
                           Summary Calendar
                        _____________________

                           RICHARD BUTLER,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                versus

            HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; HARRIS COUNTY JUVENILE
                        PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                          (CA-H-94-2476)
_________________________________________________________________

                         August 26, 1997
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Richard Butler appeals from the judgment as a matter of law in

favor of Harris County and his former employer, the Harris County

Juvenile Probation Department, on his claim that, for filing a

grievance   reporting   suspected   violations   of   the   law,   he   was

discharged in violation of the Texas Whistleblower’s Act.




     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
     Butler did not satisfy his burden of providing a complete

transcript of the trial.   See Great Plains Equipment, Inc. v. Koch

Gathering Systems, Inc., 45 F.3d 962, 965-66 (5th Cir. 1995).

Nevertheless, we have reviewed the portions provided, along with

the briefs and the remainder of the record, and conclude that no

reasonable juror could have found either that Butler was discharged

because he reported, in good faith, a suspected violation of law,

or that he would not have been terminated had he not filed a

grievance.   See FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a); Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d

1285, 1300 (5th Cir. 1994).

     Accordingly, the district court did not err by setting aside

the jury verdict in favor of Butler and granting the defendants’

motion for judgment as a matter of law.   Butler v. Harris County,

et al., No. CA-H-94-2476 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 1996) (unpublished).

                                              AFFIRMED




                               - 2 -
