
    Carmen LECHIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-20557 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 14, 2018
    Iain Gordon Simpson, Simpson, P.C., Houston, TX, Robert Christopher Bell, Bell Rose, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    
      Gabriel David Kaim, Norton Rose Fulbright US, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carmen Lechin sued United Airlines for malicious prosecution and defamation after she was arrested following an incident aboard an international flight. In a comprehensive Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court granted summary-judgment for United.

Lechin brings three issues on appeal. She complains that the district court denied leave to amend. The court pointed out, however, that the request was made “over seven months after the deadline provided in the court’s scheduling order” and that prejudice would result because “the discovery cutoff is now less than three weeks away” and the parties would have to “investigate at least four new claims.” The. court did not err in denying leave to amend.

Lechin attacks the summary judgment, claiming the district court failed to indulge inferences in her favor. The court announced the proper standard and pointed out that “[sjince Lechin was indicted by a grand jury, United cannot be liable for malicious prosecution unless it knowingly provided false information.” Lechin identified no such source but, as the district court explained, “rel[ies] on unwarranted inferences and conclusory allegations.” As for defamation, the court properly found that “there is no record evidence of any specific statement published by United that could serve as the basis for Lechin’s defamation claim.”

The appeal has no merit. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons amply furnished by the district court. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cír. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under tlic limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     