¶1 Karen Gray appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Gray argues that she was terminated from her job, in which she had a Fourteenth Amendment property interest, without due process of law. Gray alleges that she was denied *426 pre-termination process and a post-termination hearing.
¶2 Gray’s allegations regarding the denial of pre-termination process are raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, they will not be considered by this court. See Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., 98 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir.1996); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991). The record reflects that Gray failed to utilize the grievance procedure that was available to her following her termination. The evidence does not support her contention that requiring her to utilize the grievance procedure would have been futile. Accordingly, Gray’s due process rights were not violated. See Rathjen v. Litchfield, 878 F.2d 836, 838 (5th Cir.1989). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.