Scott v. Wackenhut Corp, 04-60060 (2004)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 04-60060
Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit June 22, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-60060 Summary Calendar JERRY SCOTT and ROBERT L. SHAW Plaintiffs - Appellants VERSUS WACKENHUT CORPORATION; JAMES E. DORSEY; ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.; WILLIAM C. DECK; INTERNATIONAL GUARDS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL #123; RONNIE L. MOORE; JAMES R. LAWSON, LOCAL #123 Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court For
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit June 22, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-60060 Summary Calendar JERRY SCOTT and ROBERT L. SHAW Plaintiffs - Appellants VERSUS WACKENHUT CORPORATION; JAMES E. DORSEY; ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.; WILLIAM C. DECK; INTERNATIONAL GUARDS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL #123; RONNIE L. MOORE; JAMES R. LAWSON, LOCAL #123 Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court For t..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit June 22, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-60060 Summary Calendar JERRY SCOTT and ROBERT L. SHAW Plaintiffs - Appellants VERSUS WACKENHUT CORPORATION; JAMES E. DORSEY; ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.; WILLIAM C. DECK; INTERNATIONAL GUARDS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL #123; RONNIE L. MOORE; JAMES R. LAWSON, LOCAL #123 Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg 02-CV-145 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We affirm the judgment of the district court based on its thorough memorandum opinion and order of December 12, 2003. AFFIRMED. * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Source: CourtListener
