Assoc Terminals LLC v. DE Marine Svc Inc, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 01-30062
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
ASSOCIATED TERMINALS LLC,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant -
Appellee,
versus
DELAWARE MARINE SERVICE, INC, in personam; M/V JAMES
E PHILPOTT, in rem; XYZ INSURANCE CO,
Defendants - Counter Claimants -
Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-287
August 30, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Delaware Marine Service, Inc. (“Delaware”) appeals the dismissal of its counterclaims against

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Associated Terminals, L.L.C. (“Associated”). Delaware contends that the district court procedurally
erred in granting Associated’s motion to dismiss “the case in its entirety” after the district court
granted Delaware’s motion for summary judgment on Associated’s claims and denied Delaware’s
motion for summary judgment on Delaware’s claims. Delaware argues that it is entitled to a trial on
the merits of its counterclaims.
Delaware’s challenge to the procedural propriety of the dismissal is unavailing. Delaware had
sufficient opportunity in the district court to respond to the arguments presented by Associated.
See McCarty v. United States, 929 F.2d 1085, 1088 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, the evidence
presented fails to indicate that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Ross v. Univ. of Tex. at San
Antonio, 139 F.3d 521, 527 (5th Cir. 1998); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Thus, any error committed by the
district court was harmless, and the district court’s decision to grant Associated’s motion was correct.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --