Opinion ID: 618104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court. Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 641 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). In reviewing the record, all facts and inferences are construed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Id. 1 It is unclear from the citation, however, to what Price’s counsel is directing this court. Her citation is to “St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425 ( 5th Cir. 2000), citing Chiarella v. U. S. , 100 S. Ct. 1108 [sic].” Nowhere in our opinion in St. Paul Mercury Insurance do we cite to Chiarella. This is not the only sloppy citation in Price’s counsel’s confusing brief. Earlier, she appears to quote language from Reese v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 210 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (S.D. Fla. 2002), which does not appear in that opinion. 3 Case: 11-30359 Document: 00511680363 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/30/2011 No. 11-30359