Ahmed S. Shabazz appeals the denial of his motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) seeking relief from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He also moves for the production of a transcript of a hearing at government expense. Sha-bazz’s notice of appeal was timely only as to his Rule 60 motion and does not enable review of the dismissal of his § 1983 ac *979 tion. See Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Shabazz argues the merits of his underlying § 1983 claims but fails to show that denial of the Rule 60(b) motion was “so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981).

Shabazz’s appeal is devoid of arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motion for a transcript at government expense is DENIED. Shabazz is WARNED that filing future repetitive, frivolous, or abusive actions, motions, or appeals will invite the imposition of sanctions, including monetary penalties and limits on his access to federal courts.