
    Mark HILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KIRBY INLAND MARINE, L.P.; Tubal-Cain Marine Services, Incorporated; Tubal-Cain Gas Free Services, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 16-40823
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed February 15, 2017
    Steven C. Barkley, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    John Kevin Spiller, Strasburger & Price, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appel-lee Kirby Inland Marine, L.P.
    Robert Joseph Killeen, Jr., Esq., Killeen & Stern, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Tubal-Cain Marine Services, Incorporated, Tubal-Cain Gas Free Services, Incorporated
    Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants, Kirby Inland Marine and Tubal-Cain. We AFFIRM.

At oral argument before this court, the attorney for the plaintiff Mark Hilton stated he was abandoning the issue that the district court erred in failing to remand this case to state court. That concession, which is a sound one, obviates the need to analyze the district court’s denial of a remand.

As to Hilton’s summary-judgment claims, we have examined the parties’ briefs and the district court’s comprehensive opinion. We agree with the district court’s reasoning that Kirby did not breach any of the duties outlined in Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156, 166-76, 101 S.Ct. 1614, 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981).' We further agree that Tubal-Cain neither owned, occupied, nor controlled the barge on which Hilton was injured. See Allen Keller Co. v. Foreman, 343 S.W.3d 420, 426 (Tex. 2011). The district court did not err in its grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     