Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0513-01.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

Linda DUNBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF HOUSTON; City of West University Place; City of Bellaire; City of Southside Place; Ambit Energy Holdings, L.L.C.; Centerpoint Energy, Incorporated; City of West University Place—Public Works Department—Operations Division, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 16-20501 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed January 13, 2017
    Newton Boris Schwartz, Sr., Esq., Law Offices of Newton B. Schwartz, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Kathleen Hopkins Alsina, Mary Lucille Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney, City of Houston, Legal Department, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee City of Houston
    
      Patricia L. Hayden, Olson & Olson, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Ap-pellees City of West University Place, City of Bellaire, City of Southside Place, City of West University Place—Public Works Department—Operations Division
    Stephen Christopher Rasch, Esq., Jennifer Meghan Nylin, Richard Barrett Phillips, Jr., Thompson & Knight, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Ambit Energy Holdings, L.L.C.
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Dunbar appeals the Rule 12(b) dismissal of her complaint against the myriad public and private defendants named in her lawsuit. We have painstakingly reviewed Dunbar’s brief and record excerpts as well as the four appellate briefs and record excerpts filed by the various Defendants-Appellees, and have independently considered the . record on appeal and the law applicable to Dunbar’s appeal and the underlying dismissal of her lawsuit. As a result of our review, we are satisfied that the district court committed no reversible error in dismissing Dunbar’s action with prejudice.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.