Frank C. Bailey Enterprises, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 78-1423
| Decision Date | 03 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1423,78-1423 |
| Citation | 582 F.2d 333 |
| Parties | FRANK C. BAILEY ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. Earl Smith, Dothan, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
J. Huntley Johnson, Dothan, Ala., Ben Kirbo, Bainbridge, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH and HILL, Circuit Judges.
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district court correctly granted the defendant-appellee's motion for summary judgment.
We have reviewed the record and find that the appellee carried its burden of showing that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Once the movant has carried this burden, the non-moving party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). If the non-moving party does not do so, summary judgment for the movant is proper. Oglesby v. Terminal Transport Co.,543 F.2d 1111, 1112 (5th Cir. 1976); Sweet v. Childs, 507 F.2d 675, 679 (5th Cir. 1975). In this case, the appellant's allegations and denials failed to establish that there was a genuine issue for trial. The district court, therefore, properly granted summary judgment for the appellee.
On appeal, counsel for appellant sets forth additional allegations in an attempt to show that there was in fact a genuine issue for trial. However, an appellate court, in reviewing a summary judgment order, can only consider those matters presented to the district court. Munoz v. International Alliance, 563 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1977); Garcia v. American Marine Corp.,432 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, we disregard the appellant's additional allegations and affirm the judgment below.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger
...409 U.S. 1076, 93 S.Ct. 682, 34 L.Ed.2d 664 (1972).160 Tarpley v. Greene, 684 F.2d 1, 7 (D.C.Cir.1982); Frank C. Bailey Enter's v. Cargill, Inc., 582 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir.1978).161 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A.162 Id.163 See Sadlowski v. United Steelworkers, 645 F.2d 1114, 1120 (D.C.Cir......
-
State of La., ex rel. Guste v. Verity
...we offer no opinion as to its merits. See Vaughner v. Pulito, 804 F.2d 873, 877 n. 2 (5th Cir.1986); Frank C. Bailey Enterprises, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 582 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir.1978) (appellate court, in reviewing summary judgment order, can consider only those matters presented to the d......
-
Johnson v. Sawyer
...judgment on grounds "neither raised below ... nor even raised sua sponte by the district court"); Frank C. Bailey Enter., Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 582 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir.1978). More importantly, we have held that, on appeal, we will not consider a new ground in opposition to, or in defens......
-
Alliance for Good Gov't v. Coal. for Better Gov't
...Co, Inc. , 448 F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).34 Alliance I , 901 F.3d at 506 (citing Frank C. Bailey Enters., Inc. v. Cargill, Inc. , 582 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir. 1978) ).35 City of Pub. Serv. Bd. v. Gen. Elec. Co. , 935 F.2d 78, 82 (5th Cir. 1991).36 Id. (cleaned up).37 S......