Pool v. Hill, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-31153
Summary Calendar
_____________________
CHARLES POOL; AARON WARD,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SABRIA J. HILL, Police Chief; SAM JONES,
Mayor, City of Franklin; CITY OF FRANKLIN,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(00-CV-1111)
---------------------
June 27, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Charles Pool and Aaron Ward, black
males who currently or formerly served as police officers in
Franklin, Louisiana, appeal the district court’s grants of summary
judgment dismissing their federal and state claims that are too
numerous to reiterate here. It suffices that all arose from or are
connected with Pool’s long-term, on again/off again, adulterous and
consensual sexual affair with Chief Hill, which commenced prior to
Pool’s being hired by Franklin as a policeman. Ward’s claims have

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the same origin, albeit somewhat less directly, by virtue of his
having been Pool’s police partner.
The district court issued a 26-page Memorandum Ruling,
painstakingly addressing and analyzing each of the claims advanced
by Pool and Ward, carefully discussing the implications of each,
and thoroughly explicating the applicable law. In light of the
district court’s patient and comprehensive analysis and disposition
of all claims, nothing would be gained —— and judicial resources
wasted —— by our writing independently: Ultimately, we would
merely reiterate the reasoning of the district court and would
reach precisely the same conclusions as did that court. It
suffices that our de novo review of the record on appeal, the
briefs, and the district court’s rulings in this case convinces us
that the dismissals of all claims asserted by Pool and by Ward were
legally correct, as are the reasons given by that court in its
Memorandum Ruling. For essentially the same reasons set forth by
the district court, therefore, all rulings, orders, and judgments
appealed from by Pool and Ward are, in every respect,
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --