United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20650
Summary Calendar
DOUGLAS CEBRYK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VECO CORPORATION
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
No. H-03-1926
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Douglas Cebryk appeals the district
court’s grant of Defendant-Appellee VECO Corporation’s motion for
summary judgment. Cebryk’s complaint alleged that VECO tortiously
interfered with his relationship with his employer, Parsons
Engineering & Chemicals. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court.
A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de
novo, using the same standards as the district court. Union Pac.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-20650
-2-
Res. Group, Inc. v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 247 F.3d 574, 583 (5th
Cir. 2001). A movant is entitled to summary judgment when "the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P.
56(c).
To recover for the allegedly tortious interference with his
employment relationship, Cebryk had to plead and prove: (1) an
employment contract or relationship subject to interference, (2)
willful and intentional interference, (3) that proximately caused
his injuries and (4) actual damage or loss. Prudential Insurance
Company of America v. Financial Review Services, Inc., 29 S.W. 74,
77 (Tex. 2000). For essentially the reasons given by the district
court, we conclude that Cebryk has not submitted evidence
sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact on the
elements of intentionality or proximate causation.1 Alternatively,
we agree with the district court that VECO has demonstrated that it
is entitled to summary judgment on its affirmative defense of legal
justification.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1
The plaintiff attached certain materials to his notice of
appeal. Our review, however, is limited to the summary judgment
record. Wallace v. Texas Tech. Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 (5th
Cir. 1996) citing Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1071,
n.1 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).