Abram, etal. v. Reichhold Chemicals ( 1998 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60597
Summary Calendar
ANTIONETTE ABRAM, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
REICHHOLD CHEMICALS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Mississippi
(2:92-CV-122 PR)
April 15, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charlotte B. Hibley, Vernon Duane Hibley, Vernon Lamar Hibley, Ida
Lucretia Johnson, Jessie James Peavey, Peggy Joyce Pittman, and Hoyt Shelby
Forbes appeal the summary judgment in favor of Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. For
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
the reasons assigned, we affirm.
The appellants contend generally, without addressing the merits, that the
district court erred in granting summary judgment without a hearing and in not
considering the affidavit testimony of their expert, Dr. Jacob Savage. A party who
inadequately briefs an issue is considered to have abandoned the claim.1
Nevertheless, reviewing same we find that the appellants’ contentions are without
merit. Rule 56(c) does not require an oral hearing in open court. 2 The record
reflects that the appellants were given notice and an adequate opportunity to
respond to the movant’s arguments, providing the requisite Rule 56(c) hearing
guarantees. The record also reflects that the district court considered Dr. Savage’s
affidavit as if it were admissible when granting summary judgment.
Our de novo review of the record, briefs, and applicable law discloses no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for essentially the reasons adopted by the district court.
The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
1
Arkanase v. Fatjo, 130 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 1997).
2
Villanueva v. CNA Ins. Co., 868 F.2d 684 (5th Cir. 1989).
2