Sullivan v. Boyd Tunica Inc, 07-60831 (2008)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 07-60831
Visitors: 55
Filed: Sep. 09, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 9, 2008 No. 07-60831 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JAMES SULLIVAN Plaintiff - Appellant v. BOYD TUNICA INC, doing business as Sam’s Town Casino Tunica; MISSISSIPPI GAMING COMMISSION; WILLIAM ANDERSON, Individually and in his capacity as a Mississippi Gaming Official; PAT HAWKINS, Individually and in his capacity as a Mississippi Gaming Official; FAYE PERKINS Defendants - Appel
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 9, 2008 No. 07-60831 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JAMES SULLIVAN Plaintiff - Appellant v. BOYD TUNICA INC, doing business as Sam’s Town Casino Tunica; MISSISSIPPI GAMING COMMISSION; WILLIAM ANDERSON, Individually and in his capacity as a Mississippi Gaming Official; PAT HAWKINS, Individually and in his capacity as a Mississippi Gaming Official; FAYE PERKINS Defendants - Appell..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 9, 2008 No. 07-60831 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JAMES SULLIVAN Plaintiff - Appellant v. BOYD TUNICA INC, doing business as Sam’s Town Casino Tunica; MISSISSIPPI GAMING COMMISSION; WILLIAM ANDERSON, Individually and in his capacity as a Mississippi Gaming Official; PAT HAWKINS, Individually and in his capacity as a Mississippi Gaming Official; FAYE PERKINS Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We find that the district court committed no reversible error and affirm on the basis of the district court opinion. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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
