Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0123-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lee PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS; Barry T. Smitherman, Chairman Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Chief Executive Officer R.A. Walker; Maverick Production Company, Incorporated; Chief Executive Officer J. Michael Yeager; Samson Exploration, L.L.C.; Samson Lone Star, L.L.C.; President Stacy Schusterman; Viesca Gas Company; President Paul E. Schenfelder, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 15-51042 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 08/22/2016
    Lee Perry, Pro Se.
    Jason Thaddeus Contreras, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Railroad Commission of Texas.
    Daniel Craig Bitting, Olga Kobzar, Scott, Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Anadarko Petroleum Corporation.
    Bradley Keenam Jones, Baker & Hos-tetler, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Maverick Production Company, Incorporated, Chief Executive Officer J. Michael Yeager.
    Trent D. Stephens, Burleson, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Maverick Production Company, Incorporated.
    Eno Ekwere Peters, Esq., McElroy, Sullivan, Miller, Weber & Olmstead, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Chief Executive Officer J. Michael Yeager, Samson Exploration, L.L.C., Samson.Lone Star, L.L.C., President Stacy Schuster-man.
    Michael E. McElroy, McElroy, Sullivan, Miller, Weber & Olmstead, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Samson Exploration, L.L.C., Samson Lone. Star, L.L.C., President Stacy Schusterman.
    Lee Stephen Gill, Jones Gill, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Viesca Gas Company.
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This court has before it the district court’s orders dated July 31,2015, September 30, 2015 and October 15, 2015, dismissing this case. And all of pleadings, exhibits, and the brief have been considered. It is apparent that the Plaintiff believes he has been damaged, and that the Defendants have responsibility for that. However, this court has to decide whether we have legal authority to make some ruling on the complaints of the Plaintiff, or whether the district court had the legal authority to do so.

For there was to be legal authority of these federal courts to act upon the complaint of the Plaintiff, so there had to be specific factual allegations against each Defendant for which there might be liability. That is lacking in anything to be found in this record. It is necessary for this court to follow the law of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) and affirm the dismissal of the case.

AFFIRM. 
      
       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.