Gonzales v. O/S Vessel Brazos, 00-40055 (2000)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 00-40055
Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-40055 Summary Calendar _ KENNETH A. GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus O/S VESSEL BRAZOS PILOT; BRAZOS PILOT ASSOCIATION; MAX BLANTON, JOHN GUNNING, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. G-99-CV-85) _ August 9, 2000 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant did not object
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-40055 Summary Calendar _ KENNETH A. GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus O/S VESSEL BRAZOS PILOT; BRAZOS PILOT ASSOCIATION; MAX BLANTON, JOHN GUNNING, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. G-99-CV-85) _ August 9, 2000 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant did not object t..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 00-40055 Summary Calendar _____________________ KENNETH A. GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus O/S VESSEL BRAZOS PILOT; BRAZOS PILOT ASSOCIATION; MAX BLANTON, JOHN GUNNING, Defendants-Appellees. _______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. G-99-CV-85) _______________________________________________________ August 9, 2000 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant did not object to the district court’s order concerning the timing of witness testimony, nor did appellant seek to * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. make an offer of proof of additional evidence. No due process error has been preserved for review. The findings of the district judge are supported by ample evidence in the record and are not clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED 2
Source: CourtListener
