Case Name: Calvin J. PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-19
Citations: 486 B.R. 475
Docket Number: No. 12-30498
Parties: Calvin J. PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 486
Pages: 475–475

Head Matter:
Calvin J. PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-30498
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 19, 2012.
Ames Louis Arruebarrena, Esq., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Max Coleman Marx, John Housan Fen-ner, III, Turner Industries Group, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Calvin J. Parker appeals the district court's dismissal of his employment discrimination case against Defendant-Appellee Turner Industries Group, L.L.C. ("Turner") on the ground of judicial estoppel. Specifically, Parker failed to inform the bankruptcy court in which he and his wife had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition three weeks before his employment termination that he subsequently filed the instant employment discrimination lawsuit grounded in racial discrimination.
In a lengthy, well-reasoned Order and Reasons, the district court explained its grant of Turner's motion for summary judgment and dismissal of Parker's suit. Our review of the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the applicable law as explicated therein and by the district court in its Order and Reasons, satisfies us that the district court's judgment of dismissal should be, and therefore is,
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.