Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Pummill v. Texas, New Mexico, 00-50012 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 00-50012 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-50012 Summary Calendar _ MICHAEL PUMMILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TEXAS, NEW MEXICO & OKLAHOMA COACHES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (EP-99-CV-182-F) _ June 6, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In contesting the FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his action against his employer for breach of a collective bargaining
More
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                        ____________________

                             No. 00-50012
                           Summary Calendar
                         ____________________

                           MICHAEL PUMMILL,

                                                Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                versus

           TEXAS, NEW MEXICO & OKLAHOMA COACHES, INC.,

                                                Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                         (EP-99-CV-182-F)
_________________________________________________________________
                            June 6, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     In contesting the FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his

action against his employer for breach of a collective bargaining

agreement, Michael Pummill asks only that we reverse Supreme Court

precedent holding that the applicable statute of limitations is six

months.   See DelCostello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 
462 U.S. 151
, 169 (1983).    But, as Pummill concedes, we cannot do so.

No authority need to cited for the rule that such precedent is

binding on this court.


     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 the reasons stated by the district court, Pummill v.

Texas, New Mexico & Oklahoma Coaches, Inc., No. EP:99-CA-0182-F,

slip op. at 2-5 (W.D. Tex. 1 Dec. 1999), the judgment is

                                                     AFFIRMED.




                              - 2 -

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