Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60626/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

No. 02-60852

Summary Calendar

_______________

LEE SAMUEL DONNELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; MALCOLM C. COTTING;

W.E. WALKER; MICHAEL L. CLOMPTON; RALEIGH L. CHARPENTIER;

ROBERT A. HAMMOCK; T.A. BOWEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Case: 03-60626 Document: 0051514279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2004
2

_______________

No. 03-60624

Summary Calendar

_______________

LEE SAMUEL DONNELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; MALCOLM C. COTTING;

W.E. WALKER; MICHAEL L. CLOMPTON; RALEIGH L. CHARPENTIER;

ROBERT A. HAMMOCK; T.A. BOWEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Case: 03-60626 Document: 0051514279 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2004
3

_______________

No. 03-60626

Summary Calendar

_______________

LEE SAMUEL DONNELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; MALCOLM C. COTTING;

W.E. WALKER; MICHAEL L. CLOMPTON; RALEIGH L. CHARPENTIER;

ROBERT A. HAMMOCK; T.A. BOWEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

m 3:00-CV-202-WS

m 3:00-CV-203-WS

_________________________

Before SMITH, DEMOSS and

STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Proceeding pro se, Lee Donnell pursues

three appealsthat we consolidate for purposes

of a combined opinion. Donnell challenges

various adverse rulingsin hislong-running dispute with his former employer, BellSouth

Communications, Inc. (“BellSouth”). Finding

no merit in any of Donnell’s contentions, we

* affirm in all three cases. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is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.

 Case: 03-60626 Document: 0051514279 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2004
4

I.

In No. 02-60852, Donnell appeals an order

enforcing a settlement of his underlying dispute. As the district court noted in its comprehensive order, however, Donnell appeared in

court and agreed to all the settlement terms,

which included $100,000 and full retirement

benefits to Donnell. 

Donnell assertsthat the settlement waslimited to his retaliation and defamation claims,

but the district court persuasively found otherwise, and its finding is not clearly erroneous.

Donnell also aversthat the attorney he brought

with him did not actually represent him, but

again, the district court reliably found to the

contrary. Finally, Donnell opposes the

$5,731.79 in fees and expenses that BellSouth

incurred to support the settlement that Donnell

contested. The award was reasonable, and we

will not overturn it.

There is no doubt the district court had full

authority to enforce the settlement. The court

handled that proceeding without error.

II.

In No. 03-60624, Donnell challenges an

order denying his “Plaintiff’s Motion To Correct Transcript Because of Inadvertent Errors/Ommissions [sic] and Motion To Have

Transcript Copy Made Available to Plaintiff

To Be TranscribedSSAll at His Expense.” The

transcript in question is the record of the

settlement hearing mentioned above. 

The district court patiently denied that

motion in a thorough, eight-page order. The

court explained that it had carefully reviewed

the transcript, which under law is deemed

prima facie correct, and had determined that

it is in every respect accurate. There is no

error in that decision.

III.

In No. 03-60626, Donnell appeals an order

denying his motion to strike all statements attributable to him that are contained in the

aforementioned transcript. Because the transcript is accurate, and reflectsstatementsmade

in open court, the district court properly denied the motion to strike.

IV.

This litigation badly needs to come to an

end. Donnell has received a substantial settlement, to which he agreed. He should not further burden the courts and defendants with

meritless attacks. We also remind him that

sanctions are available for frivolous litigation.

The orders complained of are AFFIRMED.1

1

 All pending motions are DENIED, including,

without limitation, Donnell’s motions to remand,

for appointment of counsel, and to hear the tape.

 Case: 03-60626 Document: 0051514279 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/22/2004