Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Briggs v. State of Louisiana, 96-30048 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 96-30048 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jul. 11, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30048 Summary Calendar CARL J. BRIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE OF LOUISIANA, Through DOC, as Supervising Agency for Hunt Correctional Center, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 94-CV-2575-B-1 - - - - - - - - - - July 1, 1996 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* Carl J. Briggs appeals from the district
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 96-30048
                         Summary Calendar



CARL J. BRIGGS,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,


versus

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Through DOC,
as Supervising Agency for Hunt
Correctional Center,

                                         Defendant-Appellee.


                        - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Middle District of Louisiana
                      USDC No. 94-CV-2575-B-1
                        - - - - - - - - - -
                            July 1, 1996
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

     Carl J. Briggs appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment, dismissing his claim filed pursuant to the

Americans with Disability Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 12101-117.    Briggs

contends that the ability to restrain inmates is not an essential

function of a corrections officer and that appellee failed to

make a reasonable accommodation.   We have reviewed the record and

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
                            No. 96-30048
                                - 2 -

find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the magistrate judge.   See Briggs v. State of

Louisiana, No. 94-CV-2575-B-1 (M.D. La. Sept. 6, 1995).

     AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer