Case ID: f-appx_511/html/0336-01.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

GLOBAL ENTERPRISES OF BAKER, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BAKER; Mike Knaps, Chief; Cecil Daniels, Lieutenant; West Feliciana Parish Sheriff's Office; J. Austin Daniel, Sheriff; Zachary Police Department; David Courtney, Chief, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-30685.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 6, 2013.
    Lawrence R. Anderson, Jr., Attorney, Willie Gene Johnson, Jr., Esq., Attorney, Seale, Smith, Zuber & Barnette, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    John Scott Thomas, Esq., LA Municipal Association, Jonathan D. Mayeux, Attorney, Stacey A. Moak, Christopher Wayne Stidham, Stacey Moak & Associates, Baton Rouge, LA, Jason Paul Wixom, Esq., Lloyd Frederick Schroeder, II, USRY, Weeks & Matthews, A.P.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In 2009, Defendants-Appellees conducted an undercover sting operation at a hotel owned by Plaintiff-Appellant Global Enterprises of Baker, L.L.C. (“Baker”). The police officers conducting the operation paid for their hotel rooms and did not cause any property damage to the hotel. Baker filed suit against Defendants-Appel-lees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and La. C.C. art. 2315, alleging violations of Fourteenth Amendment liberty and property interests.

Defendants-Appellees moved for summary judgment against Baker, which the district court granted after finding Baker had not established any violations of its liberty or property interests. Baker appealed.

After reviewing the record, the applicable statutory and case law, and the district court’s summary judgment and reasoning, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment and adopt its analysis in full. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.