Case ID: f-appx_212/html/0375-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles L. STRINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen MAY; Safeway Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-60518
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 5, 2007.
    Charles L. Stringer, Jackson, MS, pro se.
    Wade Garrett Manor, Scott, Sullivan, Streetman & Fox, Ridgeland, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant Charles Stringer (“Stringer”) filed suit against his automobile insurer, Safeway Insurance Company, and one of its adjusters, Kathleen May (“the Defendants”). The district court granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Stringer’s suit. Stringer appeals to this Court.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Gowesky v. Singing River Hosp. Sys., 321 F.3d 503, 507 (5th Cir.2003). Furthermore, because Stringer is proceeding in this matter pro se, his pleadings must be liberally construed. Pena v. United States, 122 F.3d 3, 4 (5th Cir.1997). We have carefully examined the briefs, the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. We believe the district court fully considered and properly rejected all of Stringer’s arguments. For the reasons stated in the district court’s Opinion and Order granting the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and the district court’s Opinion and Order denying Stringer’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, we affirm the decision to enter final judgment against Stringer.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.