IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40682 Summary Calendar

GREGORY A. SHANAFELT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS; TERRY BOX, Collin County Sheriff; MARK SANDERSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (No. 4:99-CV-279) _________________________________________________________________ November 7, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Former Texas prisoner Gregory A. Shanafelt appeals, pro se, a

summary judgment in favor of Defendants in his

action challenging the validity of his 1997 arrest. He does not

brief any challenge either to the district court’s dismissal of his

claims against the Attorney General of Texas and Sheriff Terry Box

or to the district court’s imposition of sanctions against him;

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. these issues are deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner,

(5th Cir. 1987).

Shanafelt’s conclusional allegations that the judge’s

signature on the arrest warrant is invalid cannot overcome summary

judgment, see Michaels v. Avitech, Inc.,

(5th

Cir.), cert. denied,

(2000); his contentions regarding

statements made to a reporter do not give rise to a genuine issue

of material fact, see FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); and his contention that

defendant Sanderson lied in his affidavit in support of the arrest

warrant is frivolous in the light of the record. In sum, the

record reflects that Sanderson arrested Shanafelt pursuant to a

valid arrest warrant.

Thus, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and

Defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See,

e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

(1986) FED. R.

CIV. P. 56. Because Shanafelt’s appeal is without arguable merit,

it is frivolous and must be dismissed. See Howard v. King,

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

In the light of this appeal being frivolous, we GRANT

Appellees’ motion for sanctions to the extent they seek to recover

their costs for defending this appeal. We therefore ORDER

Shanafelt to pay $2345.53, the verified costs presented to this

court for the proceedings taken since the filing of the notice of

appeal. Shanafelt is hereby warned that the filing of future

2 frivolous appeals in this court could result in the imposition of

further sanctions, including monetary sanctions or bars on future

filings.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS GRANTED IN PART; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED

3