Court Opinion

ID: 31654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 10:20:11+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:23.843735
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit
                                                              F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                June 9, 2003
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                       _____________________              Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                  Clerk
                            No. 02-31002
                       _____________________

PARK PLANTATION LLC,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,

                                v.

BLANCHARD 1986 LTD; JOHN E. HINE; PETER L. TURBETT; TORTUGA
OPERATING CO.; TORTUGA INTERESTS INC.; TEXACO INC.; TEXACO
EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INC.; MARATHON OIL, formerly known
as TXO Production Corp.; B P AMOCO, Successor in interest to
formerly known as ARCO, formerly known as Atlantic Richfield Co.,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Western District of Louisiana
                        USDC No. 01-CV-1480
_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

     We have studied the briefs and the record in this case and we

have had the benefit of helpful oral arguments from the parties,

but we are not convinced that the district court committed any

reversible error under these particular facts and circumstances. We

     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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 set forth in 5th Cir. R.
47.5.4.
therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court, dismissing

this case with prejudice.   Each party will bear its own costs.

                                                         AFFIRMED.