Summary Calendar SETH T. DYRCZ v. GRAHAM BROTHERS OF LONGVIEW, LLC d/b/a GRAHAM CENTRAL STATION, OF LONGVIEW

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 9, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 07-40087
Summary Calendar
_____________________
SETH T. DYRCZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GRAHAM BROTHERS OF LONGVIEW, LLC
d/b/a GRAHAM CENTRAL STATION, OF
LONGVIEW; LONGVIEW CLUB ENTERPRISES,
INC. d/b/a GRAND CENTRAL STATION,
LONGVIEW; LONGVIEW ENTERPRISES LTD,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(2:05-CV-476)
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Seth T. Dyrcz appeals from the take-nothing
judgment as a matter of law entered by the district court against Dyrcz
following a personal injury jury trial in which Dyrcz was awarded $40,724.60

-- 1 of 2 --

2
for physical impairment and $10,000 for physical pain and mental anguish,
reduced by 40% for his contributory negligence. The basis for the post-verdict
take-nothing judgment was a Release and Assumption of Risk executed by
Dyrcz immediately prior to a “Dodge Ball Contest,” expressly releasing,
indemnifying, and holding harmless Graham Central Station Longview, its
partners, agents, and employees, from any responsibility or liability for
personal injury incurred in participating in the dodge ball contest in question.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal in this case, and the
law and evidence pertaining to the validity and extent of coverage of the
Release and Assumption of Risk signed by Dyrcz, as well as his testimony and
stipulation regarding the circumstances of the execution of that instrument
and his knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of its contents and
purposes. Based on this review, we are convinced that the district court
correctly granted the motion of Defendant Longview Enterprises, Ltd. for a
judgment as a matter of law, for the reasons cogently set forth in the court’s
Memorandum Order signed November 13, 2006.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --