* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-21038 Summary Calendar MANUEL ORTEGA Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THE CITY OF HOUSTON Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-96-CV-2932) September 30, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Ortega appeals the district court§ 1981 discrimination claim and his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper on his § 1981 claim because Ortega failed to present evidence that created a reasonable inference that his national origin was a determinative factor motivating the CityÂ’s adverse employment actions agai nst him. S ee Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools , 75 F.3d 989, 994 (5th Cir. 1996). Though he presented some proof t o the contrary, the overwhelming evidence submitted below showed that Orteg aÂ’s violation of the police departmentÂ’s internal policie s, not his national origin, was the reason for his indefinite suspension. S ee id. at 993 (“Even if the evidence is more than a scintilla , ‘ Boeing assumes that some evidence may exist to support a position which is yet so overwhelmed by contrary proof as to yield to a directed verdict.’”) (quoting Neely v. Delta Brick and Tile Co., Inc. , 817 F.2d 1224, 1226 (5th Cir. 1987)). Ortega is foreclosed from contesting the CityÂ’s offset from his back pay award because his counsel agreed with the Hearing Examiner that such an off-se t was proper. In addition, Ortega has waived this argument on appeal due to his failure to cite to the record for any evidence supporting his claim that the monies he earned while suspended derived from moonlighting jobs. S ee Me sser v. Meno , 130 F.3d 130, 135 (5th Cir. 1997) (“TEAÂ’s failure to cite or refute the record . . . waives this complaint on appeal. . . .”).

Ortega§ 1983 claim for a name-clearing hearing also falls short because the record show s that his “whole objective” before the Hearing Examiner was to clear his name, that he was successful before the Hearing Examiner and that the H ouston Chronicle , four months after the derogatory s tatements about Ortega were made, repor ted the Hearing ExaminerÂ’s decision exonerating Ortega of wrongdoing. Due process requires no more. See Gillum v. City of Kerrville , 3 F.3d 117, 121 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1072 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.