Full Opinion

Case: 26-60230 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-60230 October 29, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Thomas B. Plunkett, III Clerk Antonio R. Weathersby, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Boilermakers Union; Huntington Ingalls, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:26-CV-2 ______________________________ Before Jones, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Antonio R. Weathersby appeals the dismissal of his complaint raising a hybrid claim against his employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement and a claim against his union for breach of the duty of fair representation. See DelCostello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164 (1983). * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-60230 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2026 No. 26-60230 Weathersby has abandoned his appeal of the dismissal of his complaint by challenging only the time bar dismissal and not the alternative basis for dismissal of the complaint for failing to state a claim. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Nor does he address the district court’s reasons for denying his motion to stay pending resolution of proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board or otherwise show that it was an abuse of discretion. See Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987). As for the denial of his request for leave to amend his complaint, Weathersby has not shown that the district court abused its discretion as he does not challenge the basis for denying his request or show that his amended complaint would state a claim. See Crostley v. Lamar Cnty., 717 F.3d 410, 420 (5th Cir. 2013). Likewise, he has not shown that it was an abuse of discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the dismissal of his sole federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The motion for judicial notice is DENIED. 2