The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-10381•Lovell v. Harris Meth Hlth Sys, et al
00-10381Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitOct 17, 2000
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 00-10381
(Summary Calendar)
OLEN I. LOVELL Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRIS METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM; TEXAS HEALTH SYSTEM; TEXAS HEALTH
RESOURCES
Defendants-Appellees,
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(99-CV-2809-G)
- - - - - - - - - -
October 16, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this employment dispute, Plaintiff-Appellant Olen Lovell
appeals the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award
in favor of Defendants-Appellees. Lovell alleged that his
employment was wrongfully terminated because of his race. The case
was submitted to arbitration by agreement of the parties. The
-- 1 of 2 --
2
arbitrator ruled for Defendants-Appellees, and Lovell filed a
motion in the district court to vacate that award.
Lovell brings before us some sixteen claims, many of which are
repetitive or conclusional, or both. Given the extremely limited
scope of our review of arbitration cases and Plaintiff-Appellant’s
failure timely to raise his objections during the arbitration
hearing, most of Lovell’s claims are either barred or waived, or
both. We have examined the remaining claims and, after a careful
review of the parties’ briefs, pertinent parts of the record, and
the memorandum order of the district court, we conclude that they
have no conceivable basis in law or in fact, making this appeal
frivolous. We therefore dismiss this appeal.
DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.