United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 02-41404

_______________

IN THE MATTER OF:

CLAMONT ENERGY CORPORATION INC.,

Debtor.

LEO ROGER DUGAS,

Appellant,

VERSUS

JASON R. SEARCY,

Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

m 1:02-CV-27

_________________________
2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and

CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leo Dugas seeks review of the district

court’s order dismissing his appealfroma final

order of the bankruptcy court. Because the

district court lacked jurisdiction over the

appeal, we affirm.

I.

This appeal arises from an adversary proceeding that commenced May 10, 1993, which

related to chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding

concerning the estate of Clamont EnergyCorporation Inc. (“Clamont”). Appellee Jason

Searcy served as the trustee of Clamont. The

bankruptcy court approved a settlement between Searcy and Dugas on February23, 1994

(“settlement order”).

On May 14, 1996, the bankruptcy court ordered that the adversary proceeding be remanded to state court. Dugas appealed that

remand order. The district court dismissed the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction on November 26, 1996; we affirmed the dismissal order.

The case was closed February 3, 1998.

On October 29, 2001, Dugasfiled a motion

to show cause why Clamont should not be

held in contempt of the settlement order. The

bankruptcy court issued an order on November 8, 2001 (“first November order”), striking

appellant’s motion because the case was

closed. On November 19, 2001, Dugas moved

to vacate the settlement order; this motion was

stricken by the bankruptcy court’s November

29, 2001, order (“second November order”).

Briefs filed by both parties were also stricken

by a December 12, 2001, order (“December

order”) because the case was closed and the

question had already been decided in the

November order.

On December 19, 2001, Dugas filed a notice of appeal to the district court; Searcy filed

a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely on

January 14, 2002. The district court entered

an order on September 16, 2002, dismissing

the appeal as untimely. 

II.

Dugas appealed to the district courtseeking

review ofthe bankruptcy court’sstriking of his

motion seeking a contempt order and its

refusal to vacate the settlement order. The

bankruptcycourt denied considerationofthese

questions with its first and second November

orders, respectively. These orders were both

final orders disposing of the motions. 

Dugas filed his notice of appeal to the district court on December 19, 2001. He therefore missed the ten-day deadline prescribed by

the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

with respect to both orders. See FED. R.

BANKR.P.8002(a) (“The notice of appealshall

be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the

date of the entry of judgment, order, or decree

appealed from.”).

“Failure to file a timely notice of appeal

deprives the district court of jurisdiction to

consider the appeal.” In re Don Vincente

Macias, Inc., 168 F.3d 109, 211 (5th Cir.

1999) (punctuation omitted). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction, we also lack jurisdiction over the merits raised on appeal by

* 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.
3

Dugas. See id. The district court’s dismissal

of the appeal is therefore AFFIRMED.