Court Opinion

ID: 13927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:31:11+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:23.973329
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 97-30672
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

                         DWIGHT WILLIAMS,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                              versus

                   COMPRESSION COAT CORPORATION,

                                               Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Western District of Louisiana
                             (96-CV-408)
_________________________________________________________________
                          January 15, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Dwight Williams appeals the summary judgment dismissing his

product liability and negligence claims against Compression Coat

Corporation.   Williams, who was nominally employed by Tempower

Services, Inc., when allegedly injured, contends that genuine

issues of material fact exist regarding whether, at that time, he

was the borrowed employee of Compression Coat while working at its

facility.   See Green v. Popeye’s Inc., 619 So. 2d 69 (La. App. 3d

     *
          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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Cir. 1993); Capps v. N.L. Baroid-NL Industries, Inc., 784 F.2d 615

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 838 (1986).   (Of course, such

status would make Compression Coat immune from suit.) Based on our

de novo review of the summary judgment record, we conclude that

summary judgment was appropriate, and AFFIRM for essentially the

reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Compression Coat

Corp., No. 96-0408 (W.D. La. Mar. 21, 1997) (unpublished).

                                                      AFFIRMED

                              - 2 -