Case Name: NEVAREZ LAW FIRM, P.C., Plaintiff-Appellant. Michael R. Nevarez Intervenor v. J. L. R., A Minor; Jose Luis Rojas, also known as Jose Rojas, also known as Jose Rodriguez, also known as Jose Luis Rodriguez, also known as Jose L. Rojas; Artemio Jayme; Viviana Jayme; Marco Aurelio Jayme; M. J., A Minor; G. J., A Minor; Tatiana Jayme, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-24
Citations: 699 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 17-50343 Summary Calendar
Parties: NEVAREZ LAW FIRM, P.C., Plaintiff-Appellant Michael R. Nevarez Intervenor v. J. L. R., A Minor; Jose Luis Rojas, also known as Jose Rojas, also known as Jose Rodriguez, also known as Jose Luis Rodriguez, also known as Jose L. Rojas; Artemio Jayme; Viviana Jayme; Marco Aurelio Jayme; M. J., A Minor; G. J., A Minor; Tatiana Jayme, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
NEVAREZ LAW FIRM, P.C., Plaintiff-Appellant Michael R. Nevarez Intervenor v. J. L. R., A Minor; Jose Luis Rojas, also known as Jose Rojas, also known as Jose Rodriguez, also known as Jose Luis Rodriguez, also known as Jose L. Rojas; Artemio Jayme; Viviana Jayme; Marco Aurelio Jayme; M. J., A Minor; G. J., A Minor; Tatiana Jayme, Defendants-Appellees
No. 17-50343 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed October 24, 2017
Michael R. Nevarez, Nevarez Law Firm, P.C., El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Michael R. Nevarez, Nevarez Law Firm, P.C., El Paso, TX, for Intervenor
Michael J. Zimprich, El Paso, TX, for Defendants-Appellees
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, oral argument, and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no error of law or reversible error of fact. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons articulated by that court.
Motion to supplement the record DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.