Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30323/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30323-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30323

Summary Calendar

ANDERSON WALLACE, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

TERREBONNE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CV-420

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Anderson Wallace, Jr., appeals the denial of his 

motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 

We review the denial of a Rule 60 motion for abuse of discretion. In re Isbell 

Records, Inc., 774 F.3d 859, 869 (5th Cir. 2014). Wallace claims that the 

district court abused its discretion by denying his motion without giving 

 

* 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

September 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30323 Document: 00513193850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2015
No. 15-30323

2

Terrebonne Parish School Board (“Terrebonne”) an adequate opportunity to 

respond. He does not cite any statute or authority to support this novel theory, 

and his argument fails for inadequate briefing. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Wallace also argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to hear 

his case. But Wallace’s own attorney signed a written consent form pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) before trial. The form was then signed by Terrebonne’s 

counsel and filed with the district court, establishing consent in the record. See 

Archie v. Christian, 808 F.2d 1132, 1137 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc). Thereafter, 

Wallace never raised an objection to proceeding before a magistrate, nor did he 

appeal the judgment. A “Rule 60(b) motion is not to be used as a substitute for 

appeal.” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). This

argument is both waived and without merit. See Archie, 808 F.2d at 1137.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30323 Document: 00513193850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2015