Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40649/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40649-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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

March 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40649

Summary Calendar

 

GENE E. DUDLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

N.L. CONNORS, Warden; UNKNOWN RICE, Caseworker; 

MARIA ROSE, Counselor; KATHLEEN HAWKS, Director 

of Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C.; PAUL 

NICHOLAS; JOHN 2-5 DOES; R. ROUT, Mailroom 

Personnel at El Reno Federal Correctional Institute; 

UNKNOWN WILBURN, Officer, Mailroom Personnel; 

RICHARD GOODSEAL, Mailroom Personnel; UNKNOWN 

HENDERSON; Lieutenant, SHU Housing Unit Manager; 

UNKNOWN HAMM, Officer; INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM OFFICER, El Reno Federal Correctional 

Institute Management System Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:00-CV-308

 

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gene E. Dudley, federal prisoner # 10961-045, appeals the

 Case: 03-40649 Document: 005163422 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2004
2

dismissal of his civil rights complaint. See Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Dudley filed a purported notice

of appeal from the judgment of dismissal; however, that pleading

did not “clearly evince” an intent to appeal, as the primary relief

requested was reconsideration and Dudley sought to appeal only in

the alternative. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.

1987). The pleading therefore did not constitute a timely notice

of appeal from the judgment dismissing the complaint with

prejudice, and, consequently, we have jurisdiction only to review

the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion, from which he did

file a timely notice of appeal, but our review is only for an abuse

of discretion. See Lancaster v. Presley, 35 F.3d 229, 231 (5th

Cir. 1994).

Dudley’s contention that his proceedings were rendered unfair

because the district court failed to consider his objections prior

to adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge is frivolous

given that the district court did ultimately review the objections

and deemed them meritless. Also frivolous is his contention that

we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because there was no final

judgment; the district court adjudicated all claims against all

defendants. 

Dudley’s conclusional allegations that the defendants

fraudulently misrepresented whether his claims were exhausted are

an insufficient basis on which to grant Rule 60(b)(3) relief. See

 Case: 03-40649 Document: 005163422 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2004
3

Gov’t Fin. Servs. One Ltd. P’ship v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d

767, 772 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally, with respect to Dudley’s

argument that his unexhausted claims were erroneously dismissed

with prejudice he has demonstrated no abuse of the district court’s

discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief in that respect. See

Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996) (abuse

of discretion is standard of review of denial of Rule 60(b)

relief). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-40649 Document: 005163422 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2004