Opinion ID: 2659041
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Loss of Consortium Claims

Text: “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.” Haverda v. Hays Cnty., 723 F.3d 586, 591 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 635 (5th Cir. 2011)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists when, after considering the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits, a court determines that the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). We must consider all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson 5 Case: 13-30579 Document: 00512579499 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/31/2014 No. 13-30579 v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citation omitted); Haverda, 723 F.3d at 591 (citation omitted). The district court found that “the evidence submitted . . . does not identify any loss beyond . . . generalizations.” On appeal, the Sinclairs do not argue that there is any evidence that the district court overlooked, nor do they direct the court’s attention to any additional evidence. Based on our review of the record, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing Wendel Sinclair and the Sinclairs’ son’s claims for loss of consortium.