DALLAS GAS PARTNERS, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROSPECT ENERGY CORPORATION; Prospect Capital Management, LLC; John F. Barry; John Hopley; M. Grier Eliasek; Eric Klaussmann, Defendants-Appellees; Dallas Gas Partners, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Prospect Capital Management, LLC; John F. Barry; John Hopley; M. Grier Eliasek; Eric Klaussmann, Defendants-Appellees, 340 F. App'x 175

PER CURIAM: Dallas Gas Partners, L.P. (“Dallas Gas”), sued the various defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and tor-tious interference with a contract. The defense was that Dallas Gas had released its claims; the parties dispute whether Dallas Gas was a party to the release. The district court granted

summary judgment to the defendants. We have reviewed the briefs and have heard the arguments of counsel. We have consulted pertinent parts of the record, including the subject agreements, and have researched the applicable law. The judgment is legally sound, and it is fair. Dallas Gas erred in not reading the addendum that effected the release, and Dallas Gas ratified the release by keeping the sums received under the contract. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court and the magistrate judge. Pursuant to 5th Cut.

R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.