Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0672-01.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

LGD PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEIS LAGOS UTILITY DISTRICT; Seis Lagos Community Services Association, Incorporated; Rolando Ramon; Lisa Jones, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-40822
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 07/11/2016
    Donald Ray Murphy, Larry Ray Boyd, Ryan David Pittman, Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, P.C., McKinney, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant. .
    William Andrew Messer, Julie Yvonne Fort, Brett Daniel Gardner, Messer, Rockefeller & Fort, P.L.L.C., Frisco, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Seis Lagos Utility District, Rolando Ramon.
    Robert Francis Maris, Maris & Lanier, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Seis Lagos Community Services Association, Incorporated, Lisa Jones.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In a dispute that began with a disagreement over the elevation of a culvert, a contractor sued a utility district, a homeowners’ association, and two private persons in state court. When federal constitutional claims were added, the matter was removed to federal court. Sixteen months later, after ample discovery and numerous pleadings, the district court issued a sufficiently comprehensive order, addressing the pertinent issues, that granted summary judgment for the defendants on all the federal claims and remanded to state court on any remaining claims under state law.

We have examined the briefs and pertinent portions of the record, have reviewed the applicable law, and have heard the arguments of counsel. The plaintiff has not shown any federal constitutional violation or any other actionable wrong. The judgment is AFFIRMED., essentially for the reasons ably stated by the district court. The appellant’s motion to strike is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.