Williams v. Anhueser Busch Inc ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20548
JOHN J. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC.; MICHAEL E. HARDING,
Defendants-Appellees,
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-98-CV-3988)
- - - - - - - - - -
March 9, 2001
Before WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM**:
Plaintiff-Appellant John J. Williams appeals from the order of the
district court granting the summary judgment motion of Defendants-
Appellees Anheuser-Busch Inc. and Michael E. Harding (collectively,
“Defendants”) and awarding $494.75 in costs to Defendants. As
*
District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
**
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Williams’s appellate brief addresses only issues of slander per se and
the award of costs, all other issues are deemed abandoned on appeal1;
thus those two issues are the only ones that we consider.
Having carefully reviewed the summary judgment record on appeal and
the legal arguments of the parties as set forth in their respective
appellate briefs, we conclude that the rulings of the district court
should be affirmed. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on
Williams’s claim of slander per se because, as a matter of law,
Harding’s statements do not constitute slander per se; and, moreover,
because his statements clearly are privileged. Williams has failed to
raise a genuine issue of material fact as to either slander per se or
privilege, so the district court’s grant of summary judgment was
appropriate as to both issues.
AFFIRMED.
1
See Fed.R.App.P. 28(a)(9); Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338,
1349 (5th Cir. 1994).
2