Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20432 Su m m ar yC al endar

J A M E S T . L E G G E T T , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. B R E N T N E W T O N ; S E T H S IL V E R M A N , 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 t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 09- C V

- 341

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D AV IS an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Jam es T. L eggett ap pea l s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof hi s Fed eralR u l e of C i vi lP rocedure R u l e 60(b) m ot i on , w h i ch c h al l en ged t h e di sm i ssal , as f rivol ou s, of hi s 42 U

. S. C

. § 1983 ci vi lr i ght s c om pl ai nt
. The di st r i c tc our tnot ed t hat L eggett ’ s m ot i on di d n otst ate any groun ds t h at w ou l d en t i t l e hi m t o rel i ef un der R u le 6 0 (b ). W e d o n o th a v e j u r is d ic t io n t o r e v ie w t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di sm i ssalof the u n derl yi n g § 1 983 ci vi lri gh t s com pl ai n t , a n d L eggetti s l i m i t ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 7, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-20432 Document: 00511104016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 09- 20432

2 on appea lt o a c hal l enge of t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s dec i si on t o de ny hi s R ul e 6 0(b)
m o tio n . Se e Bar r s v . Sul l i v an , 9 0 6 F

. 2 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 1 (5th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ). L eg ge tt, ho w e ve r , do e s no t ad dr e s s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni al o f hi s Rul e 6 0(b) m o t i o n a nd
on l y p rese n ts arg u m en ts i n su p p ort of h is u n d erlying §1 9 8 3 ci vilri gh ts
c o m p la in t. T h u s , L e g g e tt h a s a b a n d o n e d h is o n lyco g n iz a b le cla im o n a p p e a l. S ee B ri n km an n v. D allas Cou n ty D epu ty S h erif f A bn er , 8 1 3 F

. 2 d 7 4 4 , 74 8 ( 5 th C i r. 1 987 ) (hol di n g t h at an a pp el l an t ’ s fai l u re to i den t i f y an y errori n t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s a n al ys i s i s t he s am e a s i f he ha d no ta ppe al e d t he j udg m e nt)

. To t he
e x te n t t h a t L e g g e tt ra is e s n e w cla im s , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s th o s e b e c a u s e th is
c o u r t d o e s n o t g e n e r a llyco n s id e ra r g u m e n ts ra is e d fo rth e fir s t t im e o n a p p e a l. S ee S t ew artG l ass & M irr o r, In c. v. U

. S

. A u t o G l ass D i sc. C t rs. , I n c. , 200 F. 3d 3 0 7 , 3 1 6 -1 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). Legget ti s c aut i oned t hat the di st r i c tcour t ’ s di sm i ss alof h i s c om pl ai nt as f rivol ou s and our di sm i ssalof t h i s app ealas f

rivol ou s each coun tas a st ri ke f or p u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se e Ade pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F. 3d 383, 387 ( 5th C i r. 199 6)

. Leg getti s f u rt h er c au t i on ed that i f he accum u l ates t h ree s t ri kes pu rsuan tt o § 191 5( g) , he m ay n otproceed I F P i n an y civi lact i on or ap pea lf i l ed
w hi l e he i s i nc ar c e r at e d o rde t ai ne d i n a ny fac i l i t y unl e s s he i s und e ri m m i ne nt d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED

. Case: 09-20432 Document: 00511104016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2010