* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has deter mined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-40660 Summary Calendar

_____________________

GREAT PLAINS CAPITAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES E. WILLIAMS; WHITEHOUSE TRUE VALUE INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:92-CV-684)

________________________________________________

March 27, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles E. Williams challenges an adverse summary jud gment,

contending that the district c ourt did not rule on his

counterclaim. We AFFIRM

.

I.

Tyler National Bank brought this action in state court against

Williams and Whitehouse True Value, Inc. (collectively "Williams")

for promissory note default. When the bank was declared insolvent,2

the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as

receiver, intervened, and removed the action to federal court. The

district court treated the parties' briefs as a motion for summary

judgment and response, and ordered that judgment be awarded the

F DIC and that the FDIC be allowed to amend its pleadings to

establish damages.

Williams' counsel withdrew before the FDIC filed its amended

pleadings. Williams filed a p ro se response to those pleadings and

contends here that his response included a counterclaim. The case

was reassigned, the FDIC moved for summary judgment, and the court

granted the motion and entered judgment for the FDIC.

The district court granted the FDIC's motion to alter or amend

j udgment. Construing Williams' post-judgment pleadings as a

response to the FDIC's motion to amend judgment and a motion for a

new trial, the district court denied Williams' motion for a new

trial. Great Plains Capital Corporation was substituted as the

real party in interest.

II.

Pro se pleadings "must be read in a liberal fashion and

however inartfully pleaded must be held to less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers". R odriguez v. Holmes

,

963 F.2d 799, 801 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotes and citations

omitted). Williams maintains that his p ro se response to the

FDIC's amended pleadings included a counterclaim; he asserts that3

the district court erred in entering judgment without addressing

it. Although the claim in issue was not designated as a

counterclaim, Williams' response can be const rued liberally to

present one.

In its order granti ng summary judgment, the district court

stated that it had considered Williams' arguments and found them to

be without merit. Furthermore, the district court denied Williams'

motion for a new trial, which asked f or a hearing on his

count erclaim, on the basis that it raised no new grounds.

Accordingly, the district court ruled on Williams' counterclaim.

Williams presented no evidence, only allegations, in his

counterclaimand opposition to summary judgment. Because he did

not present a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment was

appropriate. F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(c).

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.