Case ID: f-appx_78/html/0955-02.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

Leon W. LAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert JOHNSON, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections; Lawrence Kelly, Superintendent, CMCF; Robert Culpepper, Director of Medical Services; David Carlson, Attending Physician; Ahmed Zein, Attending Physician, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-60551.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2003.
    Leon W. Law, #08585, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Pearl, MS, pro se.
    John Lewis Clay, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM

Leon W. Law, Mississippi state prisoner # 088550, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the magistrate judge’s entry of an Agreed Judgment and the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all remaining 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the defendants.

By moving for IFP status, Law is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Law has failed to show that his appeal from the Agreed Judgment was taken in good faith. As the Agreed Judgment simply reflects the agreement of the parties, there was no ruling by he magistrate judge from which to appeal. Nor has Law filed a timely notice of appeal from any of the magistrate judge’s rulings as they pertain to Law’s attempts to enforce the Agreed Judgment. His request for IFP status is DENIED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Furthermore, because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Law’s motions for the production of documents and for the appointment of counsel are also DENIED.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.