Case Name: John HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC.; Borg-Warner Protective Services Corporation; Burns International Security Services, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-17
Citations: 101 F. App'x 947
Docket Number: No. 04-30061
Parties: John HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC.; Borg-Warner Protective Services Corporation; Burns International Security Services, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 947–947

Head Matter:
John HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC.; Borg-Warner Protective Services Corporation; Burns International Security Services, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-30061.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 17, 2004.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff John Hudson submitted his wrongful termination and defamation claims to arbitration under an agreement with his employer Borg-Warner Protective Services. The arbitrator returned a decision on April 12, 2002. Plaintiff appealed that decision on February 26, 2003. The district court dismissed his claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm the district court's dismissal as the relevant statute of limitations provides only three months to appeal from arbitration orders. 9 U.S.C. § 12. As Hudson was appealing an arbitration order rather than a district court order, the district court properly applied § 12 rather than Fed. R. Crv. P. 60(b).
Any equal protection claims against the district court are barred by judicial immunity. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). Any equal protection claims or claims of misdeeds by the American Arbitration Association are barred by arbitral immunity. Hawkins v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 149 F.3d 330, 332 (5th Cir.1998).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.