Finch v. The Dee Howard Co, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50982
Summary Calendar
THOMAS E. FINCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE DEE HOWARD CO.;
AEROINTERNATIONAL, INC.;
ALENIA AND FINMECCANICA;
FINMECCANICA,
Defendants-Appellees
THOMAS E. FINCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
THE DEE HOWARD CO.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC Nos. SA-96-CV-979-FB, SA-98-CV-156-FB
--------------------
August 23, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-50982
-2-
Thomas Finch appeals the grant of summary judgment to the
defendants. The district court did not err. Finch ratified the
release of his ERISA claims. See Williams v. Phillips Petroleum
Co., 23 F.3d 930, 935 (5th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment was thus
properly granted to the defendants on these claims. Texas law
does not recognize a cause of action for fraud in these
circumstances. See Leach v. Conoco, Inc., 892 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.
App.SSHouston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ dism’d). Accordingly, the
district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this
issue.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --