Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20104/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20104-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20104

Conference Calendar

 

ARTHUR E. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY;

BILLY MANNING,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-1334 

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Arthur E. Johnson filed the instant appeal following the

district court’s entry of its June 20, 2002, order dismissing his

pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted; its July 9, 2002, order denying

his FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) motion; its July 30, 2002, order

denying his motion to set aside the denial of his Rule 59(e)

motion; and its November 29, 2002, order denying his motion in

 Case: 03-20104 Document: 005156167 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-20104

- 2 -

opposition to the July 30, 2002, order and imposing sanctions

against him for filing frivolous motions. 

Johnson's notice of appeal is timely only as to the district

court's November 29, 2002, order denying his motion in opposition

to the July 30, 2002, order and imposing sanctions against him. 

See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Nelson v. Foti, 707 F.2d 170, 171

(5th Cir. 1983) (holding that a timely notice of appeal is a

mandatory precondition to the exercise of appellate

jurisdiction). Johnson does not allege any error in the district

court’s November 29, 2002, order. He has therefore waived the

only issue this court has jurisdiction to review on appeal. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

 Case: 03-20104 Document: 005156167 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2004