IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 01-31153 Summary Calendar _____________________

CHARLES POOL; AARON WARD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus SABRIA J. HILL, Police Chief; SAM JONES, Mayor, City of Franklin; CITY OF FRANKLIN, Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (00-CV-1111) --------------------- June 27, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Plaintiffs-Appellants, Charles Pool and Aaron Ward, black males who currently or formerly served as police officers in Franklin, Louisiana, appeal the district court’s grants of summary judgment dismissing their federal and state claims that are too numerous to reiterate here. It suffices that all arose from or are connected with Pool’s long-term, on again/off again, adulterous and consensual sexual affair with Chief Hill, which commenced prior to Pool’s being hired by Franklin as a policeman. Ward’s claims have * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. the same origin, albeit somewhat less directly, by virtue of his having been Pool’s police partner.

The district court issued a 26-page Memorandum Ruling, painstakingly addressing and analyzing each of the claims advanced by Pool and Ward, carefully discussing the implications of each, and thoroughly explicating the applicable law. In light of the district court’s patient and comprehensive analysis and disposition of all claims, nothing would be gained —— and judicial resources wasted —— by our writing independently: Ultimately, we would merely reiterate the reasoning of the district court and would reach precisely the same conclusions as did that court. It suffices that our de novo review of the record on appeal, the briefs, and the district court’s rulings in this case convinces us that the dismissals of all claims asserted by Pool and by Ward were legally correct, as are the reasons given by that court in its Memorandum Ruling. For essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court, therefore, all rulings, orders, and judgments appealed from by Pool and Ward are, in every respect, AFFIRMED.