Case Name: Brian James JOHNSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-02
Citations: 178 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: No. 05-50763
Parties: Brian James JOHNSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 386–386

Head Matter:
Brian James JOHNSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-50763.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided May 2, 2006.
Franklin H. McCallum, Midland, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Mark Joseph Oberti, Edwin Sullivan, Seyfarth Shaw, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before KING, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-appellant Brian James Johnsen argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial following a jury verdict for defendant-ap-pellee Baker Hughes, Inc. He claims that the district court failed to apply correctly the "safe harbor" provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12114(b)(3). As Baker Hughes points out, this is a new argument that Johnsen filed to raise in the jury charge conference or his motion for a new trial. We do not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Second, Johnsen argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his defamation claim. For several reasons spelled out in the district court's Order Granting in Part, and Denying in Part, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, entered March 16, 2005, and in Baker Hughes' brief and at oral argument, including the substantial truth of the statement asserted, the district court correctly disposed of that claim.
The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.