UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-11074
Summary Calendar
DORIS J. WALKER
Plaintiff-Appellant
VERSUS
ATE MANAGEMENT AND SERVICE COMPANY INC;
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT; RYDER SYSTEMS INC.
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:95-CV-1782-G)
March 24, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Plaintiff-Appellant Walker, proceeding pro se, sued ATE
Management and Service Company, Inc. (“ATE”), in Texas State Court
claiming damages because of alleged defamation and malicious
prosecution by ATE. ATE removed the case to district court based
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
on diversity. Walker then amended to name Dallas Area Rapid
Transit (“DART”), Marvin Buffins (“Buffins”), and Ryder System,
Inc. (“Ryder”) as Defendants, and to assert numerous additional
state law causes of action. All the claims arose from an
altercation between Walker and Buffins at work at ATE where Walker
was employed as a bus driver and Buffins was employed as a
supervisor. Buffins assaulted Walker, who shot Buffins. The
altercation apparently arose out of the long standing intimate
personal relationship between the two and had nothing to do with
their work.
Court ordered mediation resulted in an agreement by Walker to
dismiss her claims against Ryder and DART. The agreement was
reduced to writing and filed in accordance with Texas law. Shortly
thereafter, Walker amended her suit to assert new causes of action
against ATE, Ryder, and DART and naming an additional defendant.
The district court struck the amending complaint as having been
filed without obtaining permission, and granted Ryder and DART’s
motions to enforce the settle agreement and for sanctions. It also
granted summary judgment for all Appellees. Subsequently, the
court entered final judgment as to all remaining parties. Walker
now appeals the summary judgment, enforcement of the settlement
agreement and the imposition of sanctions.
Walker acknowledges that she made the settlement agreement,
but claims that it was coerced because the independent mediator
exercised undue influence over her. However, she offers
2
insufficient evidentiary support to create an issue of fact on this
point. Walker also argues that the sanctions awarded are improper,
but they are in strict accord with the settlement agreement.
Additionally, we note that numerous other grounds given by the
district court support its decisions, among them, that there is no
evidence that when he committed the assault Buffins was acting
within the course and scope of his employment, and both DART and
its independent contractor ATE are entitled to immunity under the
Texas tort statute.
In short, our careful review of the record and consideration
of the briefs indicates no error.
AFFIRMED.
3