UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 02-31013
Summary Calendar
DEE D DIBENEDETTO, Individually and on behalf of
the minor children Brooke Vreeland, Brittany Vreeland,
and Brett Vreeland,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
EXXON CORP, ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(95-CV-634)
March 12, 2003
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Dee Dibenedetto, Individually and in behalf of certain minor
children (hereinafter called “Plaintiff”) brought suit in state
court against Exxon Corporation, et al. (hereinafter called
“Defendants”) seeking recovery for personal injuries she allegedly
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
sustained while working as a security guard at Exxon’s Baton Rouge
Chemical Plant. Defendants timely removed the case to the United
States District Court on the grounds of diversity of citizenship.
Defendants then filed an answer asserting that Plaintiff was
Exxon’s statutory and special employee; and therefore the
Plaintiff’s sole remedy against the Defendants was workers
compensation benefits under Louisiana law. Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment which was referred to the magistrate
judge for report and recommendation. The magistrate filed a
comprehensive nineteen page report which recommended that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted because
Plaintiff was Exxon’s statutory employee and Plaintiff has no cause
of action in tort against Exxon or the other Defendants. The
federal district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
entered final judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and
relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated in
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation filed August 2,
2002, we affirm the final judgment entered on August 28, 2002,
which granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed
Plaintiff’s claim. AFFIRMED.
2