Filed: Sep. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: Case: 11-50744 Document: 00511979037 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 7, 2012 No. 11-50744 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk VETA GARVEY FARMER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INCORPORATED; US MAINTENANCE, INCORPORATED, doing business as US Maintenance; CINTAS CORPORATION No. 2, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC
Summary: Case: 11-50744 Document: 00511979037 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 7, 2012 No. 11-50744 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk VETA GARVEY FARMER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INCORPORATED; US MAINTENANCE, INCORPORATED, doing business as US Maintenance; CINTAS CORPORATION No. 2, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC N..
More
Case: 11-50744 Document: 00511979037 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 7, 2012 No. 11-50744 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk VETA GARVEY FARMER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INCORPORATED; US MAINTENANCE, INCORPORATED, doing business as US Maintenance; CINTAS CORPORATION No. 2, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:10-CV-591 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The court has reviewed this appeal in light of the briefs, oral argument, and pertinent portions of the record. Upon review, we find no reversible error of fact or law, nor any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIRCUIT LOC. RULE 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
