* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10210 

Conference Calendar

 

JEFFREY LACARDIA MURDOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WES D. DENTON, Corrections Officer; 

BILLY BAILEY, Corrections Officer; 

DAVID HUDSON,

 Defendants-Appellees

and

MICHAEL PHILLIPS, Corrections Officer; JOHN WISE CO.,

 Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:94-CV-103 BA

- - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1997

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeffrey Lacardia Murdock, Texas prisoner # 627998, appeals

the jury’s verdict for defendants in his civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
No. 96-10210

-2-

Murdock’s motions for appointment of counsel, to file a

first amended original petition, for joinder of persons, for

consolidation of defendants, and for an extension of time to file

a reply brief are DENIED.

After requesting and being granted a transcript at

government expense, Murdock does not give any citations to the

record of the jury trial in his entire brief. His statement of

the facts is nothing more than a repeat of his allegations and

does not refer to the evidence introduced at trial as recorded in

the transcript. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require

the parties to provide references to the record to support

statements of fact. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4); 5th Cir.

R. 28.2.3; Moore v. FDIC, 993 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir. 1993).

Further, Murdock fails to brief any issues relating to

errors in the jury verdict or the magistrate judge’s earlier

dismissal of defendants Wise and Phillips. His entire brief is

devoted to repeated assertions that his version of the incident

was true and that the defendants committed perjury. The jury

found that none of the defendants used excessive force against

Murdock. The standard of review regarding the weight of the

evidence supporting a jury verdict is narrow. See, e.g., Hiller

v. Manufacturers Prod. Research Group of North America, Inc., 59

F.3d 1514, 1522 (5th Cir. 1995)(whether evidence is so strongly

in favor of one party that a reasonable individual could not

arrive at a contrary verdict). Murdock’s brief challenges the
No. 96-10210

-3-

credibility choices made by the jury. We will not disturb those

choices. See Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449, 453 n.3 (5th Cir.

1992)(appellate court will not weigh conflicting evidence or

determine credibility of witnesses). This issue is frivolous.

Murdock also argues that he received ineffective assistance

of counsel due to the fact that he inadequately represented

himself. Because there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in

a civil case, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does

not apply in civil cases. Sanchez v. United States Postal

Service, 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986).

We have reviewed the record and find no issue of arguable

merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

We caution Murdock that any additional frivolous appeals filed by

him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To

avoid sanctions, Murdock is further cautioned to review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.