Sparks v. Lockheed Martin, 99-20485 (2004)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 99-20485
Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20485 Summary Calendar CAROLYNN C SPARKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, VERSUS LOCKHEED MARTIN AEROSPACE CORP; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-97-CV-3995) December 28, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carolynn Sparks appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Lockheed Martin on her
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20485 Summary Calendar CAROLYNN C SPARKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, VERSUS LOCKHEED MARTIN AEROSPACE CORP; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-97-CV-3995) December 28, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carolynn Sparks appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Lockheed Martin on her c..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20485 Summary Calendar CAROLYNN C SPARKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, VERSUS LOCKHEED MARTIN AEROSPACE CORP; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-97-CV-3995) December 28, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carolynn Sparks appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Lockheed Martin on her claims of breach of contract and retaliation under the False Claims Act. These claims arise out of Lockheed Martin’s termination of Sparks’s employment. Having carefully reviewed the record and fully considered the briefs of counsel, we AFFIRM for essentially the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated April 13, 1999. * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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
