Case Name: Robert E. McCLENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; Claims Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-30
Citations: 280 F. App'x 354
Docket Number: No. 07-60999
Parties: Robert E. McCLENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; Claims Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 280
Pages: 354–354

Head Matter:
Robert E. McCLENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; Claims Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-60999
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 30, 2008.
Kelly Dunleath Simpkins, Wells, Marble & Hurst, Ridgeland, MS, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Robert E. McClendon appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment rejecting McClendon's claims grounded in work-related injuries to his knee. Finding no genuine issues of material fact raised by McClendon, the district court's summary judgment rejected all of McClendon's claims. We affirm.
Having carefully reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the district court's detailed analysis, we are satisfied that the district court's rulings are fully supported. The overarching taint from McClendon's repeated men-. dacity in denying prior injuries and difficulties with the knee implicated in this action pervades his case and defeats his efforts to paint the acts of the defendants in a light favorable to him. As indicated by the district court, the prolonged investigation conducted by Claims Management, Inc. before authorizing surgery was both explained and justified by the doubt and suspicion McClendon himself created by his denial of prior problems with the knee.
For essentially the same reasons so well explicated by the district court, its grant of summary judgment for the DefendantsAppellees is, in all respects,
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.