
    Nakia WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHRYSLER LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-60725
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 19, 2009.
    Carl L. Collins, III, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Lee Thaggard, Bourdeaux & Jones, Meridian, MS, for Defendanb-Appellee.
    Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Nakia Williams appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissing her action against Defendants-Appellees Chrysler LLC and TRW Automotive U.S. LLC (incorrectly sued as TRW-Occupant Restraint System/MESA), hereafter referred to jointly as Appellees. The gravamen of Williams’s appeal is the July 18, 2008, 2008 WL 2817097, order of the court excluding the testimony of Williams’s proffered expert witnesses for failure to conform to standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. As none contest the conclusion that, without the testimony of her experts, Williams has no grounds on which to appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Appellees, the focus of this appeal is on the order excluding the testimony of her proffered experts.

Our painstaking review of the facts and the applicable law as related in the appellate briefs of the parties and the writings of the district court compel the conclusion that all relevant rulings of the district court, particularly its order excluding the testimony of Williams’s experts, demonstrates beyond cavil that this order was eminently correct, as a result of which dismissal of Williams’s action by summary judgment for lack of any genuine issue of material fact was equally correct. For the reasons set forth by the district court in its order excluding the testimony and reports of Williams’s experts, and in its Memorandum Opinion of even date therewith, the district court’s summary judgment dismissing this action with prejudice is, in all respects,

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     