Filed: Feb. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-30585 Summary Calendar TRAFFIC SCAN NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARC E. WINSTON; TRAFFIC CAMERA REPORTS, INC.; MARCO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC.; WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; WINSTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana (92-CV-2243 R) February 15, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CU
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-30585 Summary Calendar TRAFFIC SCAN NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARC E. WINSTON; TRAFFIC CAMERA REPORTS, INC.; MARCO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC.; WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; WINSTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana (92-CV-2243 R) February 15, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CUR..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-30585 Summary Calendar TRAFFIC SCAN NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARC E. WINSTON; TRAFFIC CAMERA REPORTS, INC.; MARCO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC.; WINSTON COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; WINSTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana (92-CV-2243 R) February 15, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This matter is before the court on appeal of defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff’s state law claims. Having considered the briefs and summary judgment record, on the facts as found, authorities cited, and analysis * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. made by the district court in its comprehensive and scholarly Memorandum and Order1 rendered May 24, 1995 and entered May 25, 1995, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED. 1 In footnote 9 of the Memorandum and Order (Vol. 5, p. 1063) the second reference to Traffic Camera was inadvertent; it should be “Traffic Scan.” 2
