* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60027

(Summary Calendar)

FAYE THOMLEY, Individually, 

and as Administratrix of the 

Estate of Charles W. Thomley, 

Deceased; DANA THOMLEY; RHONDA 

THOMLEY PATTERSON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

versus

MACK TRUCK, INC., ET AL., 

Defendants, 

MACK TRUCK, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(94-CV-716)

July 22, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*
2

On appeal of this diversity jurisdiction case implicating

Mississippi Products Liability law, Plaintiffs-Appellants Faye

Thomley, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of

Charles W. Thomley, Deceased, Dana Thomley, and Rhonda Thomley

Patterson (Thomley), contend that the district court erred

reversibly in granting the motion of Defendant-Appellee Mack Truck,

Inc. (Mack) for a judgment as a matter of law dismissing Thomley’s

action against Mack. Thomley also filed a motion for us to certify

questions to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which motion was

ordered carried with this appeal. Finding no merit in Thomley’s

certification motion or in her substantive appeal, we deny the

motion and affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We have considered the facts of this case as revealed by a

careful review of the record on appeal and have considered the

legal arguments of counsel as set forth in their respective briefs

filed with this court; and we have closely studied the Decision of

the Court on Rule 50 Motion filed by the district court on December

13, 1996. When the facts, the law, and the decision of the

district court are reviewed in context, they instruct beyond cavil

that the rulings and judgment of the district court were not only

free of reversible error but were eminently correct. No matter

under which category of Mississippi products liability claims the

instant case is viewed, Thomley cannot prevail: Given the

applicable law —— which we feel to be clearly settled, including

the plain language of the applicable Mississippi statute —— we are
3

left with the distinct impression that Thomley’s suit against 

Mack is a stereotypical example of an attempt to manufacture a path

to a deep pocket out of the whole cloth, in the face of unfavorable

law and facts, and particularly the unfavorable (if not incredible)

testimony of Thomley’s own expert witness. That the district court

may have relied heavily on the work product of Mack’s counsel in

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared at the

direction of the court does not diminish or detract from the

court’s thorough and craftsmanlike explication in its decision on

Mack’s Rule 50 Motion. Indeed, we would do nothing but gild the

proverbial lily by writing separately, so we elect to refrain from

doing so; rather, we adopt the decision of the district court

in toto, incorporate it by reference herein, and annex a copy

hereto. 

Thomley’s motion seeking certification to the Mississippi

Supreme Court is denied, and the judgment of the district court is,

in all respects, affirmed. 

MOTION to certify DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.