Filed: Dec. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20508 RICHARD M. FLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON; JAMES T. WILLERSON, M.D.; HEINRICH TAEGTMEYER, M.D.; GERALD V. NACCARELLI, M.D.; RICHARD W. SMALLING, M.D., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-94-CV-4204) December 9, 1996 Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appe
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20508 RICHARD M. FLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON; JAMES T. WILLERSON, M.D.; HEINRICH TAEGTMEYER, M.D.; GERALD V. NACCARELLI, M.D.; RICHARD W. SMALLING, M.D., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-94-CV-4204) December 9, 1996 Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appel..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20508 RICHARD M. FLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON; JAMES T. WILLERSON, M.D.; HEINRICH TAEGTMEYER, M.D.; GERALD V. NACCARELLI, M.D.; RICHARD W. SMALLING, M.D., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-94-CV-4204) December 9, 1996 Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant appeals the magistrate judge’s summary judgment dismissing his claims against defendants-appellees. After considering the briefs, argument of counsel, and relevant portions of the record, we conclude that the contentions that appellant raises on appeal were correctly disposed of by the magistrate judge in her April 19, 1996, memorandum and order, essentially for the * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. reasons stated therein. Accordingly, the judgment of the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED. 2
