Case Name: Michael Wayne PRIDDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MURRAY, Freed Curd, and Jerry Wayne Walker, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-11
Citations: 132 F. App'x 578
Docket Number: No. 04-5602
Parties: Michael Wayne PRIDDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MURRAY, Freed Curd, and Jerry Wayne Walker, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
Michael Wayne PRIDDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MURRAY, Freed Curd, and Jerry Wayne Walker, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-5602.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 11, 2005.
Rehearing Denied June 14, 2005.
James W. Owens, Paducah, KY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John D. Schwalb, Williams & Schwalb, Franklin, TN, Lisa A. Derenard, Benton, KY, Byron L. Hobgood, Franklin, Gordon & Hobgood, Madisonville, KY, Richard D. Null, Mayfield, KY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before GUY, DAÜGHTREY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Michael Priddy, appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants in this diversity negligence action that resulted from a tragic fire in a Murray State University dormitory in September 1998, causing one student's death and serious injury to the plaintiff. Priddy claimed that the city was negligent because it failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the cause of an earlier fire in the same dormitory, breached a special duty owed to the plaintiff that was created by a contractual relationship between the City and the University, and failed to provide proper rescue services on the night of the second fire, when Priddy was injured. The district court granted summary judgment to the City of Murray, finding that the City was immune on some claims and that others simply had not been made out as a matter of law.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendants have been fully articulated by the district court, the issu-
anee of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its memorandum opinion dated November 20, 2003.