Brian James Johnsen v. Baker Hughes Incorporated

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
F I L E D
May 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
---------------------
No. 05-50763
----------------------
BRIAN JAMES JOHNSEN
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
Defendant - Appellee
---------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Midland
No. 7:04-CV-68
--------------------------------------------
Before KING, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-appellant Brian James Johnsen argues on appeal
that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new
trial following a jury verdict for defendant-appellee Baker
Hughes, Inc. He claims that the district court failed to apply
correctly the “safe harbor” provision of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12114(b)(3). As Baker Hughes
points out, this is a new argument that Johnsen filed to raise in

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the jury charge conference or his motion for a new trial. We do
not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
Second, Johnsen argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on his defamation claim. For several reasons
spelled out in the district court’s Order Granting in Part, and
Denying in Part, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Denying Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, entered
March 16, 2005, and in Baker Hughes’ brief and at oral argument,
including the substantial truth of the statement asserted, the
district court correctly disposed of that claim.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --