Bourg v. Mobil Oil Corp ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 98-30842
    Summary Calendar
    DAVID BOURG,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    MOBIL OIL CORP.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    (97-CV-862)
    May 24, 1999
    Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    David Bourg appeals an adverse summary judgment in his Louisiana tort law
    action against Mobil Oil Corporation. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.
    Bourg was injured while working at a Mobil base in Cameron, Louisiana.
    At the time, he was nominally employed by Excalibur Support Services, Inc. The
    district court1 found that Mobil was Bourg’s “borrowed” employer under Louisiana
    workers’ compensation law and, thus, was immune from this tort suit for Bourg’s
    *
    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    not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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.
    1
    The parties consented to trial before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
    § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b).
    personal injuries allegedly sustained on the work premises. 2
    On appeal of a summary judgment our review of the record is plenary3 and
    we apply the same standard as that used by the district court.4 We view the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and, if we find no genuine
    dispute of material fact, deem summary judgment appropriate.5
    Our review of the record and briefs filed herein discloses no reversible error.
    Accordingly, on the facts as found, the authorities cited, and analysis made by the
    district court in its Memorandum Ruling granting Mobil’s motion for summary
    judgment signed and filed July 7, 1998, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
    2
    Because the district court found that Mobil was entitled to summary judgment
    under the borrowed employee doctrine, it did not address Mobil’s alternative
    contention that it was immune from suit as Bourg’s statutory employer.
    3
    International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 
    939 F.2d 1257
    (5th Cir. 1991).
    4
    Dorsett v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges & Univs., 
    940 F.2d 121
    (5th
    Cir. 1991).
    5
    Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 
    477 U.S. 242
    (1986).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-30842

Filed Date: 5/24/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021