Court Opinion

ID: 18930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:19:53+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:19.086090
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                         _____________________

                              No. 98-60190
                         _____________________

          C.B. BROOKS, ET AL,

                                 Plaintiffs,

          C.B. BROOKS,

                                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

          v.

          RUSSELL R. KELLEY, ET AL,

                                 Defendants,

          RUSSELL R. KELLEY; J.W. PRINCE, also known
          as J.W. Prince; A.B. WALLACE; E.E. VINCENT;
          C.E. JONES; J.A. BASS; GEORGE J. KOURPIAS;
          DONALD E. WHARTON; EDGAR M. HOUSE; R.
          BUFFENBARGER; ALEX N. BAY; WILLIAM ENGLER;
          LEE CARVER; RHONDA MCKINLEY; DARREL KELLEY;
          ASBESTOS SERVICES, INC., A Mississippi
          Corporation; PULMONARY SERVICES, INC.,
          A Mississippi Corporation; MISSISSIPPI
          GULF COAST DISTRICT LODGE 73, A Labor
          Organization; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
          OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, A
          Labor Organization; CENTURY MEDICAL GROUP,
          INC., A Mississippi Corporation; DENNIS
          THOMAS; OZZIE MCCORY; GERALD DICKERSON;
          ED LOWE; GLENN PITTS; KATHY GOFF; A.S.
          KELLEY; ROBERT PRITCHARD; TOM FAVRE;
          SAM JOPES’,

                                 Defendants-Appellees,

          JERRY PITTS,

                                 Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Southern District of Mississippi
                          (1:97-CV-78-GR)
_________________________________________________________________
                         October 1, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and GARWOOD and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The judgment of the district court is affirmed for

essentially the reasons set out in the district court’s

Memorandum Opinion entered February 26, 1998.

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

                                2