Smith v. Porter
Smith v. Porter
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-20713 Summary Calendar _____________________
CHARLES DENNIS SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VERNETTE PORTER; ROCHELLE McKENNEY; OWEN MURRAY; F. CHERIAN, Dr.; NEVA YARBOROUGH,
Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-4287 _________________________________________________________________ April 4, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Dennis Smith, Texas prisoner # 734317, appeals the
district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider the
summary judgment dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983civil rights
complaint. Smith alleged that the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Smith has not shown that any of the grounds enumerated in Rule
60(b)(1) to (5) are present and has not shown that extraordinary
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. circumstances exist that would warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
See Government Fin. Servs. One Ltd. Partnership v. Peyton Place,
Inc.,
62 F.3d 767, 773-74(5th Cir. 1995). Smith has not shown
that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in denying his Rule
60(b) motion for relief from the judgment. See Seven Elves, Inc.
v. Eskenazi,
635 F.2d 396, 402(5th Cir. 1981)(en banc). Smith’s
appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. See Howard v.
King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20(5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Smith is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by
him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions,
Smith is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure
that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they
have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished