Thomas v. Orchid Intl McAllen, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40482
Summary Calendar
ROBERT THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ORCHID INTERNATIONAL MCALLEN, INC.;
JOE RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-98-CV-133
--------------------
May 10, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Thomas appeals the district court’s order granting the
Appellees’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Thomas argues
that the district court committed error in granting the motion
because 1) Thomas did not sign the settlement agreement, and 2) the
settlement check he received from the appellees represented payment

-- 1 of 2 --

2
for past wages. Thomas also contends that the district court erred
in denying his motions for leave to file amended complaints and in
denying a pretrial motion for sanctions relating to the appellees’
alleged noncompliance with discovery rules.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and hold that the district court did not err in granting
the appellees’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement. See
Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1416 (5th Cir. 1995);
Lockette v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 817 F.2d 1182, 1185-86 (5th Cir.
1987). Because Thomas agreed to settle his suit and is bound by
the terms of the settlement agreement, his remaining arguments are
moot issues that we decline to address.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --