Bryan v. Jacobson Dist

Filing 920071004

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0719n.06 Filed: October 4, 2007 No. 06-4466

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FRANK L. BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACOBSON DISTRIBUTION CO., Defendant-Appellee, / BEFORE: BATCHELDER and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; and STAFFORD, District Judge.* ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO AT COLUMBUS

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff-appellant, Frank L. Bryan ("Bryan"), appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment for the defendant-appellee, Jacobson Distribution Company ("Jacobson"), in this diversity action alleging an intentional tort arising from a work place injury. We AFFIRM. Bryan was injured when he lost his footing while walking on the rail of a picker lift. To avoid falling from the picker lift, Bryan reached out to grab the racking system and, in the process, slammed his fourth finger into the rack, causing a severe and permanent dislocation of that finger. Bryan alleged that his injury was caused by a broken safety belt. The district court

* The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Florida, sitting by designation.

entered summary judgment for Jacobson, finding that Bryan adduced no evidence to suggest a nexus between his injury and the broken belt. Indeed, the uncontroverted evidence established that the broken safety belt did not cause Bryan's injury, nor would an unbroken belt have prevented his injury. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties' briefs, we are convinced that the district court did not err in entering summary judgment in Jacobson's favor. Because the district court thoroughly described the evidence presented by the parties, carefully and correctly set out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulated the reasons underlying its decision, it would serve no useful purpose for this court to issue a full written opinion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion and order.