UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 97-31017
Summary Calendar
_______________________
JAMES E. BLAND; CAREN BLAND,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; ET AL,
Defendants,
TRANSCOR AMERICA INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(96-CV-217)
_________________________________________________________________
July 16, 1998
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:*
Appellant Bland challenges the district court’s dismissal
of his lawsuit against Transcor America, Inc. to recover for
injuries suffered in an automobile accident. The court, after
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
reviewing discovery materials and holding a hearing, found that
Bland had settled his claims for $10,000 before he filed suit and
had fully released Transcor from liability.
On appeal, Bland contends that there were numerous issues
of material fact, including Bland’s capacity to enter into the
release, whether he was under duress, and whether the release was
a “rush release” unenforceable under Louisiana law. As the
district court found, however, the record is undisputed that Bland
himself negotiated the release from his hospital bed; he repeatedly
telephoned both Mississippi authorities and Transcor to confirm, on
one hand, the amount he owed on outstanding Mississippi charges for
bad checks, and, on the other hand, the amount he was demanding
from Transcor. His doctor and other disinterested witnesses
believed he was fully in control of his faculties and comprehending
of the nature and terms of the release. Given these circumstances,
the district court properly disregarded Bland’s post hoc claims
concerning the unenforceability of the release and concluded that
he did not bear his burden of establishing an issue of bad faith,
error or fraud. Succession of Teddlie, 385 So.2d 902 (2d Cir.
1980), writ denied 393 So.2d 742.
The summary judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2