HOWARD v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, L.L.C., 18-50156 (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: infco20190419144
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2019
Summary: PER CURIAM . * Shari Howard, pro se in the district court and on appeal, sued the Lowe's defendants, under various theories of state and federal law, to recover damages arising out of two separate disputes: (1) a broken Whirlpool refrigerator and (2) the denial of a prepaid-account discount. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, explaining its decision in a thor-ough and well-reasoned eighteen-page order entered January 26, 2019. The district court carefu
Summary: PER CURIAM . * Shari Howard, pro se in the district court and on appeal, sued the Lowe's defendants, under various theories of state and federal law, to recover damages arising out of two separate disputes: (1) a broken Whirlpool refrigerator and (2) the denial of a prepaid-account discount. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, explaining its decision in a thor-ough and well-reasoned eighteen-page order entered January 26, 2019. The district court careful..
More
PER CURIAM.*
Shari Howard, pro se in the district court and on appeal, sued the Lowe's defendants, under various theories of state and federal law, to recover damages arising out of two separate disputes: (1) a broken Whirlpool refrigerator and (2) the denial of a prepaid-account discount. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, explaining its decision in a thor-ough and well-reasoned eighteen-page order entered January 26, 2019.
The district court carefully explained why, under applicable state and federal law and the facts in the summary judgment record, each of Howard's theories and claims is without merit. It would accomplish little for us to copy and repeat the court's convincing disposition of this matter. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.
FootNotes
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: Leagle
