
    Scott Anthony BURAS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEI SEALING SYSTEMS LLC; Tetralene Inc.; Tetralene Elastomer Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-31070
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 15, 2008.
    
      Douglas Daniel Brown, Hammond, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Richard Edward McCormack, Irwin, Fritchie, Urquhart & Moore, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    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 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
     