Case Name: Raymond GIUFFRIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-27
Citations: 139 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 04-31103
Parties: Raymond GIUFFRIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 637–638

Head Matter:
Raymond GIUFFRIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-31103.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided July 27, 2005.
Raymond C. Giuffria, New Orleans, LA, pro se.
James F. Perot, Jr., BellSouth Telecommunications, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Giuffria appeals following the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant in this civil action. Giuffria alleged in his complaint that Bell-south committed fraud by billing him for America Online ("AOL") services to which he did not subscribe.
"This court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court." Am. Home Assurance Co. v. United Space Alliance, LLC, 378 F.3d 482, 486 (5th Cir.2004). Giuffria argues that the bills BellSouth sent to him were fraudulent. However, he fails to show a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the elements for a cause of action for fraud, and his largely conclusional brief is insufficient to meet his summary judgment burden. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994)(en banc); see also Guidry v. United States Tobacco Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 619, 627 (5th Cir.1999).
The district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.