IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-21036
Summary Calendar
HAROLD OGDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARROW AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
(H-94-CV-3987)
August 14, 1996
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
Harold Ogden appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for Arrow Automotive Industries Incorporated.
Ogden argues that there were genuine issues of material fact
precluding summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and the
briefs and affirm the district court’s judgment for essentially the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
same reasons set forth by the district court.1
Ogden also appeals from the district court’s denial of his
postjudgment motion to set aside the summary judgment or
alternatively for a new trial; the motion was served and filed well
past the Rule 59 deadline. Ogden failed to file a separate notice
of appeal from the district court’s denial of this motion.
Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to consider this issue.
Williams v. Chater, F.3d , (5th Cir. June 26, 1996, No.
94-20924) 1996 WL 361223 at *2.
AFFIRMED
1
Ogden’s brief falsely states that the record shows Arrow
represented to TEC that Ogden was let go due to a reduction in
force. However, the most the record suggests is that TEC made a
determination (which was subject to appeal; whether or not it was
appealed is not reflected) that Ogden was let go in a reduction in
force; there is no evidence whether Arrow took a position before
TEC, much less what that position was. Counsel is cautioned not to
misstate the record.
2