Detour, et al v. Miller, et al

No. 99-10827
-1-
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 99-10827
Summary Calendar
ROBERT V. DETOUR, a citizen of California, on behalf of himself
and as Co-Administrator of the Claude D. Smith Joint Venture;
CLAUDE D. SMITH, a citizen of California, on behalf of himself
and as Co-Administrator of the Claude D. Smith Joint Venture,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
LEONARD D. MILLER, Etc.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
CHARLES A. ROBERTS, a citizen of California;
BEL-AIR TRUST, a California business trust,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CV-427-A
--------------------
July 5, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert V. Detour and Claude D. Smith appeal the granting
of summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees. They
aver that the district court erred in disregarding the affidavits
offered in support of their opposition to the motion for summary
judgment and erred in failing to consider other evidence in the
record. Appellants also contend that the district court erred in
granting the motion for summary judgment.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-10827
-2-
The district court did not err in refusing to consider
the affidavit evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Nor did the
district court err in failing to consider other evidence in the
record which was not presented to the court in conjunction with the
opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Rule 56 does not
impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in
search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to summary
judgment, especially if the nonmoving party was well aware of the
existence of such evidence. Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953
F.2d 909, 916 n.7 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1992).
We have reviewed the briefs and the record. The district
court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants-
appellees because, as the record stands, there was no genuine issue
as to any material fact, and the defendants-appellees were entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --