1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________________

No. 96-20450

(Summary Calender)

______________________________

CHERYL ROWE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

JOEL D. MALLORY, JR.

Appellant,

versus

CSC CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,

ET AL.

Defendants,

LEE FISCHER & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________________

Appeal From the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)

(No. 94-1178)

____________________________________________

February 19, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

1 We note d that Mallory had not indicated his state bar roll

number below his signature on the brief he submitted in this

appeal, even though he had done so on the Notice of Appeal and in

the pleadings he submitted in the district court. We therefore

inquired with the Texas State Bar Association as to Ma llory’s

status and learned that he is pres ently under administrative

suspension for non-payment of dues and occupational tax.

2 The assessment of Rule 11 sanctions against Mallory and his

firm originates in United States Magistrate Judge N ancy K.

2 PER CURIAM: *

This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Lee Fischer & Associates,

Inc. (Fischer) on Plaintiff-Appellant Cheryl Anne Rowe’s claims of

defamation, invasion of privacy, and tortious interfere nce with

prospective contractual relations a nd from the district court’s

final order that Fischer recover from plaintiff’s counsel, Joel D.

Mallory, Jr. 1 and the Webster Law Firm, jointly and severally, the

sum of $19,467.70, together with post-judgment interest at the rate

of 5.25% per annum, as sanctions for violations of Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court assessed

these Rule 11 sanctions after determining that Mallory and the

Webster Law Firm asse rted claims against Fischer in plaintiff’s

Original Complaint, plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and

plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, without having conducted

reasonable inquiries as to whether Fischer was a proper party to

this action. 2Johnson’s order granting Fischer’s motion for sanctions. The

district court treated the magistrate judge’s order as a memorandum

and recommendation, treated the appeal filed by Mallory and his law

firm as timely-filed objections thereto, and then, after a de novo

review of those portions of the order to which they objected,

adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation in a

thorough Memorandum and Order of its own dated February 27, 1996.

3 The Notice of Appeal states that plaintiff Rowe “files an

appeal from all summary judgment orders entered against her in

favor of

. . . Lee Fischer and Associates, Inc.” Neither Rowe nor

Mallory, however, set forth any basis to overturn the district

court’s order in their Appellants’ Brief. Accordingly, this court

determines that these issues have been waived and will not be

considered. Mallory himself, however, asserts that the district

court abused its discretion in assessing Rule 11 sanctions against

him and his law firm.

In conducting our de novo review, we carefully evaluated the

record on appeal, the arguments of counsel for both parties as set

forth in their respective briefs to this court, and the applicable

law, and we have come to the firm conclusion that t he district

court correctly analyzed the issues, applied the appropriate law,

and reached the correct result in assessing Rule 11 sanctions

against Mallory. We therefore affirm in all respects the district

court’s final judgment for the reasons expressed in its thorough,

articulate, and well reasoned Memorandum and Order dated November

27, 1996.

AFFIRMED.4