(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________
No. 92-7370
(Summary Calendar)
_____________________________
RUBY FOSTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(CA-GC90-274-D-O)
_________________________________________________
(December 11, 1992)
Before KING, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
In this diversity case, Plaintiff-Appellant Ruby Foster
appeals the grant of summary judgment by the district court in
favor of Defendant-Appellee Globe Life and Accident Insurance
Company (Globe Life). As there is no error in the findings or
analysis of the district court, we affirm.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment by

-- 1 of 2 --

1Walker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 853 F.2d 355, 358 (5th Cir.
1988).
2Id. (quoting Brooks, Tarleton, Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler
v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1358, 1364 (5th Cir.
1987)(quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c))); see Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986).
3Walker, 853 F.2d at 358.
45TH CIR. LOC. R. 47.6.
2
"reviewing the record under the same standards which guided the
district court."1 A grant of summary judgment is proper when no
issue of material fact exists that would necessitate a trial. We
affirm a grant of summary judgment when "'we are convinced, after
an independent review of the record, that "there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact" and that the movant is "entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law."'"2 In determine whether the grant
was proper, all fact questions are viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-movant. Questions of law are reviewed de
novo.3
After a thorough review of the record, we have determined that
"no genuine issue of material fact has been properly raised by the
appellant, and . . . no error of law appears."4 The district court
has set out a thorough and scholarly analysis of the facts and
legal arguments in the instant case. Satisfied that we cannnot
improve on the district court's opinion, and that any attempt to do
so would merely be duplictive and thus a waste of limited judicial
resources, we attach that opinion hereto and adopt it in toto.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --