Ricky Abram v. Nabors Offshore Corporation , 439 F. App'x 347 ( 2011 )

Case: 11-20166 Document: 00511581383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 24, 2011
No. 11-20166 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
RICKY ABRAM
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
NABORS OFFSHORE CORPORATION
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston
USDC No. 11-20166
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges..
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Jones
Act, general maritime law action on grounds that plaintiff was not a seaman or
member of the crew of a vessel at the time he was injured while working for
Nabors Offshore Corporation (Nabors) on August 15, 2009.
The summary judgment record plainly supports the district court’s
judgment. The record demonstrates that appellant, Abram, worked for Nabors
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-20166 Document: 00511581383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2011
No. 11-20166
as a roustabout, a shaker hand, and a floor hand on various drilling rigs owned
by Nabors from 1994 until 2002 and again from 2005 until 2009. Plaintiff’s
affidavit and affidavits from his fellow employees state that he worked in the
Gulf of Mexico on vessel rigs at times and platform rigs at other times. They
assert with particularity that he worked on named jack-up rigs during his first
period of employment (1994-2002), but do not specify that he worked on these
vessel rigs from 2005 until 2009.
Nabors filed affidavits supported by Abram’s personnel records asserting
that Abram did no work on vessels from 2005 until 2009. This is the relevant
time period. See Patton-Tully Transp. Co. v. Ratcliff, 797 F.2d 206 (5th Cir.
1986) (a four-month hiatus in employment was a significant enough break to
require a separate evaluation of duties during the re-employment period to
determine seaman status at the time of the accident). Abram’s summary
judgment evidence did not dispute this evidence with respect to the relevant
time period so as to create an issue of fact. The district court correctly granted
summary judgment and we affirm that judgment.
AFFIRMED.
2