Court Opinion

ID: 39219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 20:21:56+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:24.962549
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                           Fifth Circuit
                                                         F I L E D
         IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                          July 19, 2005
                 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                 _____________________                      Clerk

                      No. 05-30235
                    Summary Calendar
                 _____________________

GERALD BOURG, ET AL.,

                                 Plaintiffs,

GERALD BOURG; REID SPANGLER;
MICHAEL SPEARS; JESSE MENDOZA,

                                 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                        versus

UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES CO.; ET AL,

                                 Defendants,

UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES CO.; UNION
PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP, INC.
SEVERANCE PLAN,

                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                  __________________

GERALD BOURG, ET AL.,

                                 Plaintiffs,

GERALD BOURG; REID SPANGLER;
MICHAEL SPEARS; JESSE MENDOZA,

                                 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                        versus

UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES CO.; ANADARKO
PETROLEUM CORP.; ANADARKO ENERGY SERVICES
CO.; UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP, INC.
SEVERANCE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR,
                                     Defendants-Appellees.

         __________________________________________________

            Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Louisiana
                      USDC Nos. 6:00-CV-622 and
                             6:00-CV-2269
         __________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the

reasons given by that judge in her ruling of January 25, 2005.

     AFFIRMED.

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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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