               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 00-30837
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

E.N. BISSO & SON, INC.;
BISSO OFFSHORE, LLC,

                                               Plaintiffs-Appellees,

                              versus

TRINITY MARINE GROUP, INC.;
HALTER MARINE, INC.;
HALTER MARINE GROUP, INC.,

                                           Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
            Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
                       USDC No. 99-CV-1225-B
_________________________________________________________________
                         December 27, 2000

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The defendants, Halter Marine, Inc., et. al. (“Halter”),

appeals the denial of their request for assessment of costs against

the plaintiff, E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc. (“Bisso”), pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.    Bisso initially filed suit

against Halter seeking damages for breach of contract.     Prior to

trial, Halter extended an Offer of Judgment to Bisso for $14,000.


     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Bisso rejected the offer. After a trial before the district court,

judgment was entered fully in favor of the defendant.                    In its

judgment of March 27, 2000, the court ordered each party to bear

its own costs.    Halter’s Rule 68 motion for costs against Bisso was

thereafter denied.

      Because Supreme Court precedent and Fifth Circuit case law

clearly establish that a Rule 68 assessment of costs pursuant to a

rejected Offer of Judgment applies “only to judgments obtained by

the   plaintiff,”     and    because   the    plaintiff   Bisso     obtained   no

judgment in this case, we affirm the district court’s denial of

Halter’s Rule 68 motion.       Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S.

346, 352, 101 S.Ct. 1146 (1981) (finding that Rule 68 was “simply

inapplicable     to   this   case   because    it   was   the    defendant   that

obtained the judgment”).        See also Louisiana Power & Light Co. v.

Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 333 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting that “[i]f a

plaintiff takes nothing, however, Rule 68 does not apply”).

      Therefore, the judgment of the district court is

                                                                A F F I R M E D.




                                        2
