Court Opinion

ID: 23094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:05:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:18.004532
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                ________________________________

                          No. 00-60029
                        SUMMARY CALENDAR
                ________________________________

                         SCOTT THOMAS, ET AL,
                              Plaintiffs,

                             SCOTT THOMAS,
                         Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                  v.

                 S & C ELECTRIC COMPANY; ET AL,

                              Defendants,

                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                          Defendant-Appellee.

         _______________________________________________

         On Appeal from the United States District Court
            for the Southern District of Mississippi,
                        Southern Division
                        (1:98-CV-137-BrR)
         _______________________________________________
                         January 17, 2001

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, BARKSDALE, AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

     Scott Thomas (“appellant”) asserted a negligence claim

against the United States (“appellee”) under the Federal Tort

Claims Act (“FTCA”).    28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).    Appellant’s claim is

based on injuries he suffered on April 12, 1995 when he was

burned while inspecting an electrical switch gear unit located at

     1
     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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 described in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
NASA’s John C. Stennis Space Center (“SSC”) in Hancock County,

Mississippi.   Appellant alleges that his injuries were caused, in

part, by NASA’s failure to provide a safe workplace and failure

to properly operate and maintain the SSC’s electrical

distribution system.    At the district court, the case was tried

to the bench and, at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court

granted appellee’s motion for judgment of dismissal under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 52(c).   The district court prepared written findings of

fact and conclusions of law and made them part of the record in

this case.   Having reviewed the record and the briefs, we agree

that judgment as a matter of law was appropriate in this case and

AFFIRM based on the district court opinion which is attached

hereto as appendix A.