IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60027
(Summary Calendar)
FAYE THOMLEY, Individually,
and as Administratrix of the
Estate of Charles W. Thomley,
Deceased; DANA THOMLEY; RHONDA
THOMLEY PATTERSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MACK TRUCK, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
MACK TRUCK, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(94-CV-716)
July 22, 1997
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
On appeal of this diversity jurisdiction case implicating
Mississippi Products Liability law, Plaintiffs-Appellants Faye
Thomley, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of
Charles W. Thomley, Deceased, Dana Thomley, and Rhonda Thomley
Patterson (Thomley), contend that the district court erred
reversibly in granting the motion of Defendant-Appellee Mack Truck,
Inc. (Mack) for a judgment as a matter of law dismissing Thomley’s
action against Mack. Thomley also filed a motion for us to certify
questions to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which motion was
ordered carried with this appeal. Finding no merit in Thomley’s
certification motion or in her substantive appeal, we deny the
motion and affirm the judgment of the district court.
We have considered the facts of this case as revealed by a
careful review of the record on appeal and have considered the
legal arguments of counsel as set forth in their respective briefs
filed with this court; and we have closely studied the Decision of
the Court on Rule 50 Motion filed by the district court on December
13, 1996. When the facts, the law, and the decision of the
district court are reviewed in context, they instruct beyond cavil
that the rulings and judgment of the district court were not only
free of reversible error but were eminently correct. No matter
under which category of Mississippi products liability claims the
instant case is viewed, Thomley cannot prevail: Given the
applicable law —— which we feel to be clearly settled, including
the plain language of the applicable Mississippi statute —— we are
2
left with the distinct impression that Thomley’s suit against
Mack is a stereotypical example of an attempt to manufacture a path
to a deep pocket out of the whole cloth, in the face of unfavorable
law and facts, and particularly the unfavorable (if not incredible)
testimony of Thomley’s own expert witness. That the district court
may have relied heavily on the work product of Mack’s counsel in
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared at the
direction of the court does not diminish or detract from the
court’s thorough and craftsmanlike explication in its decision on
Mack’s Rule 50 Motion. Indeed, we would do nothing but gild the
proverbial lily by writing separately, so we elect to refrain from
doing so; rather, we adopt the decision of the district court
in toto, incorporate it by reference herein, and annex a copy
hereto.
Thomley’s motion seeking certification to the Mississippi
Supreme Court is denied, and the judgment of the district court is,
in all respects, affirmed.
MOTION to certify DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
3