Filed: Oct. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D October 8, 2003 In the United States Court of Appeals Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _ m 03-40626 Summary Calendar _ KENNETH J. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS LATTIMORE MATERIALS, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas m 4:02-CV-27 _ Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and istrate judge to whom the matter was referred STEWART, Circuit Judges. by consent granted summary
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D October 8, 2003 In the United States Court of Appeals Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _ m 03-40626 Summary Calendar _ KENNETH J. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS LATTIMORE MATERIALS, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas m 4:02-CV-27 _ Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and istrate judge to whom the matter was referred STEWART, Circuit Judges. by consent granted summary ..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D October 8, 2003 In the United States Court of Appeals Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _______________ m 03-40626 Summary Calendar _______________ KENNETH J. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS LATTIMORE MATERIALS, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas m 4:02-CV-27 _________________________ Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and istrate judge to whom the matter was referred STEWART, Circuit Judges. by consent granted summary judgment for Lattimore. Smith appeals pro se. PER CURIAM:* There is no basis for recovery under the Kenneth Smith, pro se, sued Lattimore ADA. The magistrate judge explained why in Materials for violation of the ADA. The mag- a comprehensive and persuasive order dated March 24, 2003, and entered on March 25, 2003. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de- termined that this opinion should not be published The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially and is not precedent except under the limited cir- for the reasons given by the magistrate judge. cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
