Case Name: James O'DONNELL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BI-STATE ROOF SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-10-17
Citations: 32 S.W.3d 136
Docket Number: No. ED 77696
Parties: James O’DONNELL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BI-STATE ROOF SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PAUL J. SIMON and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 32
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
James O’DONNELL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BI-STATE ROOF SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 77696.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Oct. 17, 2000.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 2000.
James C. Ochs, St. Louis, for appellant.
James E. Whaley, Law Office of Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PAUL J. SIMON and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
James O'Donnell (Appellant) appeals the trial court's grant of Bi State Roof Systems, Inc.'s (Respondent) Motion for Summary Judgment based on a release with Hycel Properties Company (Hycel) signed by Appellant, and its denial of Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's determination is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).