UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-40660
Summary Calendar
_____________________
GREAT PLAINS CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES E. WILLIAMS; WHITEHOUSE TRUE VALUE INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6:92-CV-684)
________________________________________________
March 27, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles E. Williams challenges an adverse summary judgment,
contending that the district court did not rule on his
counterclaim. We AFFIRM.
I.
Tyler National Bank brought this action in state court against
Williams and Whitehouse True Value, Inc. (collectively "Williams")
for promissory note default. When the bank was declared insolvent,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as
receiver, intervened, and removed the action to federal court. The
district court treated the parties' briefs as a motion for summary
judgment and response, and ordered that judgment be awarded the
FDIC and that the FDIC be allowed to amend its pleadings to
establish damages.
Williams' counsel withdrew before the FDIC filed its amended
pleadings. Williams filed a pro se response to those pleadings and
contends here that his response included a counterclaim. The case
was reassigned, the FDIC moved for summary judgment, and the court
granted the motion and entered judgment for the FDIC.
The district court granted the FDIC's motion to alter or amend
judgment. Construing Williams' post-judgment pleadings as a
response to the FDIC's motion to amend judgment and a motion for a
new trial, the district court denied Williams' motion for a new
trial. Great Plains Capital Corporation was substituted as the
real party in interest.
II.
Pro se pleadings "must be read in a liberal fashion and
however inartfully pleaded must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers". Rodriguez v. Holmes,
963 F.2d 799, 801 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotes and citations
omitted). Williams maintains that his pro se response to the
FDIC's amended pleadings included a counterclaim; he asserts that
2
the district court erred in entering judgment without addressing
it. Although the claim in issue was not designated as a
counterclaim, Williams' response can be construed liberally to
present one.
In its order granting summary judgment, the district court
stated that it had considered Williams' arguments and found them to
be without merit. Furthermore, the district court denied Williams'
motion for a new trial, which asked for a hearing on his
counterclaim, on the basis that it raised no new grounds.
Accordingly, the district court ruled on Williams' counterclaim.
Williams presented no evidence, only allegations, in his
counterclaim and opposition to summary judgment. Because he did
not present a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment was
appropriate. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
3