### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00329- CV

Byron LaRue Barefield , Appellan t

v. Lone Star Beef P roduct, Her m an Aguil ar and Nat Leon, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 391 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D1102 35C, H ONO RAB LE TH OM AS J. GO SSETT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N By ron L aRue Ba

ref ield appea ls from a final district-court order g ranting a summary judgme nt motion fil ed by appellee s and denying his cross-motion in a suit he filed see king mone y damag es fr om a forme r employ er a nd co-w orker s. We will affirm the district cour t’s judgme nt. Ba refield is curr ently incar cer ated in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J u s t i ce and has r epre sented himself throug hout the proceeding s. Prior to his incar cer ation, Ba ref ield was employ ed by appellee L one Star Be ef Processors, L .P. I n J uly 2011, Ba ref ield sued “L one Star Be ef Product” (i.e., L one Star Be ef Processors, L .P.), and various L one Star employ ees se e k in g to rec over 1 for alleg ed damag es to his 2002 L and Rover that, acc ording to Ba ref ield, occur

red while the vehicle

Ba ref ield alleg ed that appellee Her man Aguilar was L one St ar’ s “Safe ty Manag er” and 1 appellee Nat L eon its “Hiring Manag er.” Although Ba ref ield named other L one Star employ ees as defe ndants, there is no indication in the rec ord that thes e i n d i v i d u als wer e serve d, answe red, or appea red.was parke d in the L one Star employ ee parking lot on September 28, 2008. Following this incident,

Ba ref ield further pled, he reque sted or demande d that L one Star voluntarily provide him a secur ity

came ra videotape that purportedly showed the damag e-c au s in g in c id ent, his reque st was ref used, and these exchang es led to his termination a fewday s later, on October 1 or 2, 2008. Ba ref ield pray ed for a total of $100,000 for “dama g es to vehicle” and “wr ong ful termination,” including both “mental ang uish that occurr ed to my vehicle,” and “mental anguish be cause of the wr ong ful termination.” Appellee s answe red with a g ener al denial, pled the aff irmative defe nse of limit ations, and specia lly excepted on the basis that Ba ref ield had not p l ed fac ts or leg al theories that would constitute a cog nizable c ause of action. Appellee s subsequently moved for summary judgme nt on the g rounds that Ba refield, in essenc e, had pled himself out of court: his cause s of action wer e predic ated on alleg ed injuries occur ring in September or October 2008, and he did not file suit until J uly 7, 2011, well beyond the applica ble two-y ear

limit ations period. Appe llees also asse rted that Ba ref ield had fa iled to plead fa cts that would establish a duty or breach that could be the basis for either o f t h e as s erte d cause s of action. I n response , Ba ref ield filed a “first motion for summary j u d gm ent and answe r” that consisted s olely of arg ument. Appellee s counter ed with a response t o Ba ref ield’s motion that, in part, attache d evidenc e demonstrating that Ba ref ield had filed a para llel fede ral law suit that was dismiss ed as f rivolous. The district court g rante d appellee s’ summary -judg ment motion without stating the g rounds and denied Ba

ref ield’s cross-motion. Ba

ref ield appea ls both ruling s. Howeve r, he does not challeng e appellees’ limi tations g round, t hat grou n d is sufficie nt to support the j udg ment, and we must, acc ording ly , aff

irm. See Carr v. Brasher , 776 S.W .2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989); Jack v. Holiday

2W

orld of Houston , 262 S.W .3d 42, 49-50 (Tex

. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.); Britton

v. Texas Dep’ t of Crim. Justice , 95 S.W .3d 676, 681-82 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002,

no pet.). I n any

event, B are field’s own ple ading s conclusively establish that his claims are barr ed by any conce ivably applicable statute of limit ations. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003(a) (West Supp. 2012); Tex L ab. Code Ann. § 21.256 (West 2006); see also Tex. R. App. P. 47.1(a). We af

firm the district cour

t’s judgme nt.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and H enson Affir med Filed: August 31, 2012

3