               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 00-60096
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________


JAMES E. McGREGOR, Individually and
on Behalf of the Estate and
Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of
James L. McGregor, Deceased,
Alice McGregor and Sherry McGregor,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                              versus

PAFFORD AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.;
ROB STILES; JASON EVANS,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                 Northern District of Mississippi
                     USDC No. 2:98-CV-220-EMB
_________________________________________________________________

                           July 28, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*


     After reviewing the briefs and the record in this case, we

agree with the magistrate judge, who decided this case pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c), that there is no material issue of fact that

precludes the grant of summary judgment for the defendants in this

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
case.   As noted by the magistrate judge, there is simply no

evidence that, as a result of the use of the Bolivar County

ambulance service rather than the use of the defendant’s service,

there was any delay in the transport of Mr. McGregor from the

nursing home to the hospital.   Furthermore, there is no evidence

establishing that the outcome for Mr. McGregor would have been any

different had he arrived at the hospital sooner.

     Thus, for essentially the same reasons given in the magistrate

judge’s opinion, the judgment of the district court is

                                                   A F F I R M E D.




                                2
