Case Name: Gloria ROSS, by next friend and relative, Ryan ROSS, husband, Lerandle Ross and Shanice Ross, children and next of kin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tammy PAPLER and Ronnie Papler, individually and d/b/a New Life Massage; Louise Seawright, individually, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-05
Citations: 1 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 99-5711
Parties: Gloria ROSS, by next friend and relative, Ryan ROSS, husband, Lerandle Ross and Shanice Ross, children and next of kin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tammy PAPLER and Ronnie Papler, individually and d/b/a New Life Massage; Louise Seawright, individually, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 1
Pages: 300–300

Head Matter:
Gloria ROSS, by next friend and relative, Ryan ROSS, husband, Lerandle Ross and Shanice Ross, children and next of kin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tammy PAPLER and Ronnie Papler, individually and d/b/a New Life Massage; Louise Seawright, individually, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-5711.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 5, 2001.
Before KENNEDY, NORRIS, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs, Gloria Ross, by next friend and relative, Ryan Ross, husband, Leran-dle Ross and Shanice Ross, children and next of kin, appeal from an order of the District Court granting summary judgment to Defendant, Louise Seawright, in their lawsuit arising out of the death of Gloria Ross. Jurisdiction was founded upon diversity of citizenship.
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant.
Because the reasoning which supports judgment for defendant has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 8,1998.