UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 99-20125 Summary Calendar _______________________

In The Matter Of: RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,

Debtor.

____________________

RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,

Appellant,

versus

DONALD M. LANCON; KATHLEEN ROBINSON; ROY BERT ROBINSON,

Appellees. ______________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-569 ______________________________________________________________ March 21, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

As Judge Hittner’s opinion notes, Parker, the attorney-

appellant here, has been a party to many lawsuits and proceedings

in state courts, bankruptcy court and federal district court. In

the appeal before us, he is attempting to overcome the bankruptcy

court’s ruling that a case he attempted to pursue in state court in

Galveston was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and

collateral estoppel. Parker raises only three issues on appeal:

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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 propriety of the removal; the bankruptcy court’s refusal to

abstain; and the bankruptcy court’s summary dismissal of his

claims. These issues are easily resolved.

Although the notice of removal was directed to the wrong

division of the Southern District of Texas, defendants removed the

case from state court to the bankruptcy court intending that it

should be handled by Judge Greendyke, who is presiding over

Parker’s personal bankruptcy. Any error in failing to file the

notice of appeal in the Galveston rather than the Houston division,

in both of which Judge Greendyke is an active judge, is merely

technical and bears on venue rather than the bankruptcy court’s

jurisdiction. Similarly, any defect in notice of the removal filed

with the Galveston state court is non-jurisdictional and factually

unsubstantiated.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse his discretion in

failing to abstain from hearing this case, which bears on an asset

allegedly belonging to the debtor’s estate and replicates a number

of previous claims asserted by Parker and rejected in the

bankruptcy court.

Finally, the bankruptcy court warned Parker as early as

its September, 1996 hearing, that the claims he asserted in the

Galveston case appeared to be barred by res judicata and collateral

estoppel. The court repeated this belief in the November

scheduling hearing. Parker was on ample notice that the court was

considering these issues, and he had plenty of time to brief them

before the court’s final order denying reconsideration was entered.

2 No reversible error is shown in any of the bankruptcy court’s

rulings or in the district court’s opinion affirming them.

AFFIRMED.

3