Case Name: Robert VEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; Schlumberger Limited, Schlumberger NV, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-14
Citations: 217 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 06-20336
Parties: Robert VEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; Schlumberger Limited, Schlumberger NV, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 406–406

Head Matter:
Robert VEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; Schlumberger Limited, Schlumberger NV, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-20336
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 14, 2007.
Robert Veal, Houston, TX, pro se.
Amy Karff Halevy, Jacalyn A. Hollabaugh, Tracy Caldwell Temple, Travis Wayne Gill, Bracewell & Giuliani, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Veal, formerly an employee of Defendants-Appellees ("Schlumberger"), appeals the district court's grant of Schlumberger's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Veal's action, which was grounded in racial discrimination in violation of Title VII and § 1981. Veal was represented by counsel in the district court, but he is proceeding pro se on appeal.
Our exhaustive examination of the 5-volume record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and, especially, the comprehensive and detailed Memorandum and Order signed by the district court on January 31, 2006, satisfies us that summary judgment of dismissal was properly granted in this case. As we agree with the reasoning and rulings of the district court, no useful purpose would be served by our writing further. For essentially the reasons set forth by the district court in its Memorandum and Order, that court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.