Case ID: f-appx_575/html/0442-01.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

Gopinath GOPALAM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Wendell B. SMITH; Dr. Rama Kongara; Dr. Lance E. Bullock; Rick Bennett; Officer David Breaux; Chief Sherman Jackson; City of Gonzales, Louisiana; St. James Behavioral Health Hospital, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-30196
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 17, 2014.
    John Christopher Alexander, Sr., Esq., Alexander Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Erin Wiley Lanoux, Cody Michael Martin, Robert Ryland Percy, III, Esq., Percy, Lanoux & Mumphrey, Pegram J. Mire, Jr., Dugas & Mire, L.L.C., Gonzales, LA, Sidney A. Marchand, III, Donaldsonville, LA, Katie Deranger Bell, Amanda Marie Collura, Bradley Charles Myers, Esq., Kean Miller, L.L.P., Thomas McCabe Lockwood, III, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Gopinath Gopalam appeals (1) the district court’s summary judgment dismissal with prejudice of numerous federal claims asserted against public employees and entities and against private individuals, and (2) its dismissal without prejudice of claims that Gopalam asserted under state law. All claims arise from the termination of his employment at St. James Behavioral Hospital, Incorporated in Gonzales, Louisiana. We affirm.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the district court’s Ruling on Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment of February 5, 2014. For the reasons patiently set forth by the district court in its said Ruling, detailing the law applicable to the relevant summary judgment facts, the judgment of that court is, in all respects,

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.