Anthony Danna v. Terry Apple, 09-30735 (2010)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 09-30735
Visitors: 47
Filed: Mar. 18, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Case: 09-30735 Document: 00511055652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 18, 2010 No. 09-30735 Charles R. Fulbruge III Summary Calendar Clerk ANTHONY DANNA, Plaintiff - Appellant v. TERRY APPLE; DONALD TUSA; JAMES DOUSAY; LLOYD SCALLAN; HUBERT GRAVES, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:07-CV-541 Before REA
Summary: Case: 09-30735 Document: 00511055652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 18, 2010 No. 09-30735 Charles R. Fulbruge III Summary Calendar Clerk ANTHONY DANNA, Plaintiff - Appellant v. TERRY APPLE; DONALD TUSA; JAMES DOUSAY; LLOYD SCALLAN; HUBERT GRAVES, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:07-CV-541 Before REAV..
More
Case: 09-30735 Document: 00511055652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 18, 2010 No. 09-30735 Charles R. Fulbruge III Summary Calendar Clerk ANTHONY DANNA, Plaintiff - Appellant v. TERRY APPLE; DONALD TUSA; JAMES DOUSAY; LLOYD SCALLAN; HUBERT GRAVES, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:07-CV-541 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The district court’s judgment is affirmed. That court had jurisdiction of the case with the federal claim. If an amendment had been allowed, jurisdiction would have remained. Plaintiffs made no response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the judgment was granted three months later. Plaintiffs claim no error of that. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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
