Summary Calendar FRANCENE RILEY, Individually and as tutrix, on behalf of Daniel A Cross v. United States of America;

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-31058
Summary Calendar
FRANCENE RILEY, Individually and as tutrix,
on behalf of Daniel A Cross
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ET AL
Defendants
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-951
--------------------
September 10, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francene Riley (“Riley”), individually and as tutrix for
Daniel Cross (“Cross”), appeals the district court’s judgment in
favor of the United States of America in her lawsuit brought
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Riley argues that the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-31058
-2-
district court erroneously determined that Dr. Carl A. Karr and
Captain Ronald Ray were not negligent in Cross’ death.
A district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear
error in a light most favorable to upholding the district court’s
finding. See FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a); Travelhost, Inc. v.
Blandford, 68 F.3d 958, 965 (5th Cir. 1995). If the district
court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the
entire record, this court may not reverse it even though it may
have weighed the evidence differently. See United States v.
Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1575 (5th Cir. 1994).
Dr. Steven A. Conrad and Dr. Stephen G. Jenkinson testified
that under the circumstances presented, Dr. Carl A. Karr and
Captain Ronald Ray followed the proper standard of care and were
not negligent in Cross’ death. Although Dr. Vincent J. Bennett
testified that Cross’ medical care was substandard because there
was no confirmation of whether the endotracheal tube was inserted
properly, there was also evidence presented that under the
circumstances Dr. Karr’s and Captain Ray’s conduct was not
improper.
For the foregoing reasons, the ruling of the district court
is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --