Jon v. Scott

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Jon v. Scott

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40852 Summary Calendar

ROY JON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-960 - - - - - - - - - - March 18, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roy Jon, a Texas prisoner (# 626840), appeals the district

court’s dismissal as frivolous of his pro se, in forma pauperis

(IFP)

42 U.S.C. § 1983

action in which he alleged that the

defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances; filed

false disciplinary reports against him; threatened and verbally

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. No. 97-40852 - 2 -

abused him, improperly forfeited his good-time credits; and denied

him a meal; a shower, and clean clothes.

Jon's waived his claim regarding good-time credits by not

briefing it on appeal. Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th

Cir. 1993). Jon's supplemental and amended briefs should not have

been filed as they are not authorized under the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure or the rules of this court. See FED. R. APP.

P. 28(a), (c), (j); 5TH CIR. R. 28.4. They are STRICKEN.

Jon argues that the magistrate judge improperly denied leave

to file a second amended complaint and that the district court

abused its discretion by dismissing his suit. We have reviewed the

record and Jon's allegations, and we conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jon’s § 1983

action as frivolous. Siglar v. Hightower,

112 F.3d 191, 193

(5th

Cir. 1997).

Because Jon’s arguments of error are wholly without merit,

this appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE INITIAL BRIEF DENIED;

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS STRICKEN; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Reference

Status
Unpublished