Filed: Dec. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-30592 NIA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK AND JERRY TANNER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (97-CV-1903-E) December 10, 1999 Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL1, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:** After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-30592 NIA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK AND JERRY TANNER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (97-CV-1903-E) December 10, 1999 Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL1, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:** After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30592
NIA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK AND JERRY TANNER,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(97-CV-1903-E)
December 10, 1999
Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL1, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:**
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that
the district court correctly granted summary judgment and dismissed
plaintiff’s suit for the following reasons:
1. Nia’s § 1981 action is time barred;
2. The summary judgment record does not support Nia’s
allegations of discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act (ECOA).
3. Whitney’s March 5, 1996 letter notifying Nia of the
1
Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
denial of its application for a line of credit was timely and
adequate under the ECOA.
4. We have considered Nia’s remaining arguments and conclude
that they have no merit.
AFFIRMED.
2