United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 9, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _____________________ No. 07-40087 Summary Calendar _____________________ SETH T. DYRCZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GRAHAM BROTHERS OF LONGVIEW, LLC d/b/a GRAHAM CENTRAL STATION, OF LONGVIEW; LONGVIEW CLUB ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a GRAND CENTRAL STATION, LONGVIEW; LONGVIEW ENTERPRISES LTD, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (2:05-CV-476) Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Seth T. Dyrcz appeals from the take-nothing judgment as a matter of law entered by the district court against Dyrcz following a personal injury jury trial in which Dyrcz was awarded $40,724.60 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. for physical impairment and $10,000 for physical pain and mental anguish, reduced by 40% for his contributory negligence. The basis for the post-verdict take-nothing judgment was a Release and Assumption of Risk executed by Dyrcz immediately prior to a “Dodge Ball Contest,” expressly releasing, indemnifying, and holding harmless Graham Central Station Longview, its partners, agents, and employees, from any responsibility or liability for personal injury incurred in participating in the dodge ball contest in question. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal in this case, and the law and evidence pertaining to the validity and extent of coverage of the Release and Assumption of Risk signed by Dyrcz, as well as his testimony and stipulation regarding the circumstances of the execution of that instrument and his knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of its contents and purposes. Based on this review, we are convinced that the district court correctly granted the motion of Defendant Longview Enterprises, Ltd. for a judgment as a matter of law, for the reasons cogently set forth in the court’s Memorandum Order signed November 13, 2006. AFFIRMED. 2