Smith v. Hittner
This text of Smith v. Hittner (Smith v. Hittner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 22-20403 Document: 00516715725 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED No. 22-20403 April 18, 2023 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk
Wayne Smith,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
David Hittner; MTGLQ Investors, L.P.; Brandon Hakari; Charles Eskridge; Sam S. Shelton; Clare I. Cougill; Marilyn Burgess,
Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CV-3079 ______________________________
Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Wayne Smith appeals the dismissal of his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). “We review de novo the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Lampton v. Diaz, 639 F.3d 223, 225 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Having reviewed the briefs and the record, we find Smith
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-20403 Document: 00516715725 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2023
No. 22-20403
hasn’t shown that he stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). So, we AFFIRM and all pending motions are DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Smith v. Hittner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hittner-ca5-2023.