### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40701 Su m m ar yC al endar

W I LL I E JAM ES M CCRAY , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. W IL L IE H A W K IN S , In H is In d iv id u a l C a p a c ity ; J O E A L O N Z O , In H is I ndivi dualC apac i t y; U P O U TL A W , I ndivi dual l y and i n hi s O f f i c i alC apac i t y as W a rd en ; U P M A R T IN E Z , In d ivid u a l l yan di n h er O ff i ci a lC a p a ci ty a s A sso ci a te W arden ; U P D O T T Y , I n divi du al l y an d i n h er O f f i ci al C ap aci t y as C ase m an ager C oo r di nat or ; A N G E LAL. G E N TR Y , I ndivi dual l y and i n herO f f i c i alC apac i t y as U ni tM anager ; R
. P. S A C K E TT , I ndivi dual l y and i n herO f f i c i alC apac i t y as C as e M anager ; R E B E C C AT A M E Z, I ndivi dual l y and i n herO f f i c i alC apac i t y as D SC C A dm i ni st r at or ; U N K N O W N PA R TIE S, U nkn ow n U SP B eaum ont , Texas Of f i c i a l s i n t h e i rI n d iv i d u a lC a p a c i t i e s ; S T A C E YB UT L E R , I n ma t e ; J OH N M I R E R S, I nm a te ; PE R SO N S U N K N O W N , unkn ow n U SP B eaum ont , Texas Inm ates i n t h ei r I n divi du alC ap aci t i es; U P A D U IC C I, I n divi du al l y an d i n her O ffic ia l C a p a c itya s A s s o c ia te W a r d e n ; U N K N O W N O F F IC IA L S , In th e ir I n d iv i d u a lc a p a c i t i e s a tF CIB e a u mo n tMe d i u m; F CC B EA UM ONT L OW UNKNOWN OF F I CIAL S , I nth e irI n d iv i d u a lC a p a c i t i e s a tF CC B e a u mo n tL o w; FC I B E A U M O N T M E D I U M U N K N O W N O FF I C IA LS , I n t hei r In d ivi dual C ap aci t i es as O f

f i ci al s, D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 07- C V

- 129 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D April8, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40701 Document: 00511074129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2010N o. 09- 40701

Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent exceptunder the limited circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 2 B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * W i l l i e J am es M c Cra y, fe de r alpr i s o ne r#2 45 99

- 01 8, a ppe al s f r o m t he
m a gistrate jud ge ’ s d en i a l s of h i s va ri ou s p retrial m oti on s. M cC ra y co n sen tedto th e m a g istr a te j u d g e ’ s r e so lu tion of th e se m o tion s pu rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C

. § 6 3 6 (c). H ow ever, becau se th e m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s o rd e rs den yi n g t h ose m ot i on s are ne i t he rf

i nalde c i s i o ns no ra pp eal ab l e c o l l at e r alo r de r s , t hi s c o ur tl ac ks ju r is d ic tio n to co n s id e rth e m inth is a p p e a l. S ee2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 ; D avisv. East Bat o n RougePar i s h Sc h. Bd. , 78 F. 3d 920, 925- 26 ( 5t h C i r . 1996)

. H i s appeal
m us tt he r e f

o r e b e di s m i s s e d. M c Cra y al s o pe t i t i on s thi s co ur tf o raw r i to f

m and am us o n t he g r o unds t hat( 1) c e r t ai n o f

hi s pr e t r i alm o t i o ns w e r e g r ant e d i ni t i all y be f o r e t he
m agis t ra te j u dg e i ssuedt h e order deny i n g t h em an d ( 2) t h e defen da n t s w ere cri m i n a ll yc o n vi ct ed as pa rtof t h i s act i on an d sh ou l d h ave alr ead y been
s e n t e n c e d . B o t h o f M c C r a y ’s a s s e r t e dg r o u n d s a r e e r r o n e o u s . M c C r a y ’s
m and am us pe t i t i o n i s de ni e d. M cC ray previ ou sly f i l ed a si m i l ar m an da m u s pet i t i on , w h i ch w as al so den i ed. M cC ray i s w arn ed th at an y f u t u re f rivol ou s, repetit ive, or o th e rw i se a b u s iv e filin g s w ill in v ite th e im p o s itio n o f s a n c tio n s , in c lu d in gd is m is s a l,
m o n e ta r ys a n c tio n s , a n dre s tr ic tio n s u p o n h is a b ilityto file p le a d in g s inth is
c o ur to ra ny o t he rc o ur ts ubj e c tt o t hi s c o ur t ’ s j ur i s di c t i o n. AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; M AND AMUS PE T I T I ON D ENI ED ; S ANC T I ON W AR NI NG I S S UED
. Case: 09-40701 Document: 00511074129 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2010