Summary Calendar SCOTT ANTHONY BURAS v. Tei Sealing Systems LLC; Tetralene Inc; Tetralene Elastomer Inc.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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. 07-31070
Summary Calendar
_____________________
SCOTT ANTHONY BURAS
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TEI SEALING SYSTEMS LLC; TETRALENE INC;
TETRALENE ELASTOMER INC.
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(2:06-CV-6713)
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Scott Anthony Buras appeals the grant of summary
judgment by the district court. That judgment dismissed the action filed by
Buras alleging employment discrimination; specifically, constructive
discharge resulting from alleged male-on-male sexual “horseplay” by fellow
employees and supervisors of Buras. The district court’s summary judgment
dismissed Buras’s complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case of
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 15, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

2
employment discrimination, granting the motion because of the total absence
of probative evidence: Nothing was before the court except (1) the unsworn
conclusional and self-serving statement of Buras, (2) a short, hearsay
statement from his brother (also unsworn), and (3) the deposition of one Otis
Earlycutt, formerly an employee of the defendants and supervisor of Buras,
which deposition was totally devoid of evidence supporting allegations of the
Buras complaint.
The sole basis of the appeal is the purported post-judgment “errata”
statement by Earlycutt, which Buras claims sheds a different light on the
matter. Our careful examination of the record on appeal and the briefs of the
parties refutes that contention and satisfies us that the district court
correctly granted summary judgment dismissing Buras’s action; moreover,
that even if the errata attributed to Earlycutt had been before the district
court, the result would have been the same and the summary judgment would
stand.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --