United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
March 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________
No. 02-60852 Summary Calendar

_______________



### L EE 

### S AMUEL 

### D ONNELL 

### ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### B ELL 

### S OUTH 

### T ELECOMMUNICATIONS 

### , I NC 

### .; M ALCOLM 

### C. C OTTING 

### ; W.E. W ALKER 

### ; M ICHAEL 

### L. C LOMPTON 

### ; R ALEIGH 

### L. C HARPENTIER 

### ;

R OBERT 

### A. H AMMOCK 

### ; T.A. B OWEN 

### , Defendants-Appellees.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *2 _______________
No. 03-60624 Summary Calendar

_______________


### L EE 

### S AMUEL 

### D ONNELL 

### ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### B ELL 

### S OUTH 

### T ELECOMMUNICATIONS 

### , I NC 

### .; ET 

### A L 

### .,
Defendants,

B ELL 

### S OUTH 

### T ELECOMMUNICATIONS 

### , I NC 

### .; M ALCOLM 

### C. C OTTING 

### ; W.E. W ALKER 

### ; M ICHAEL 

### L. C LOMPTON 

### ; R ALEIGH 

### L. C HARPENTIER 

### ;

R OBERT 

### A. H AMMOCK 

### ; T.A. B OWEN 

### , Defendants-Appellees.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *3 _______________
No. 03-60626 Summary Calendar

_______________


### L EE 

### S AMUEL 

### D ONNELL 

### ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### B ELL 

### S OUTH 

### T ELECOMMUNICATIONS 

### , I NC 

### .; ET 

### A L 

### .,
Defendants,

B ELL 

### S OUTH 

### T ELECOMMUNICATIONS 

### , I NC 

### .; M ALCOLM 

### C. C OTTING 

### ; W.E. W ALKER 

### ; M ICHAEL 

### L. C LOMPTON 

### ; R ALEIGH 

### L. C HARPENTIER 

### ;

R OBERT 

### A. H AMMOCK 

### ; T.A. B OWEN 

### , Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi


### m 3:00-CV-202-WS


### m 3:00-CV-203-WS

_________________________

Before S MITH , D E M OSS and S TEWART , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : * P roceeding pro se , Lee Donnell pursue s three appeals that we consolidate for purposes of a combined opinion. Donnell challenges various adverse rulings in his long-running disput e with his former employer, BellSouth Communications, Inc. (“BellSouth”). Finding

no merit in any of Donnell’s contentions, we affirm in all three cases. * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.4 I. In No. 02-60852, Donnell appeals an orderenforcing a settlement of his underlying dispute. As the district court noted in its comprehensive order, however, Donnell appeared in court and agreed to all the settlement terms, which includ ed $100,000 and full retirement benefits to Donnell.

Donnell asserts that the settlement was limited to his retaliation and defamation cl a ims, but the district court persuasively found otherwise, and its finding is not clearly er roneous. Donnell also avers that the attorney he brought with him did not actu a lly represent him, but again, the district court re liably found to the contrary. Finally, Donnell oppo ses the $5,731.79 in fees and expenses that BellSouth incurred to support the settlement that Donnell contested. The award was reasonable, and we will not overturn it.

There is no doubt the district court had full authority to enforce the settlement. The court handled that proceeding without error.

II. In No. 03-60624, Donnell challenges an order denying his “Plaint iff’s Moti on To Correct T ranscript Because of Inadvertent Errors/Ommissions [ sic ] and Motion To Have Transcript Copy Made Available to Plaint iff To Be Transcribed 

### SS

All at His Expense.” The transcript in

question is the record of the settlement hearing mentioned above.

The district court patiently denied that motion in a th orough, ei ght-page order. The
court explained that it had carefully reviewed the transcript, which under law is de emed prima facie correct, and had determined that it is in every respect accurate. There is no error in that decision. III. In No. 03-60626, Donnell appeals an order denying his motion to strike all statements attributable to him that ar e co ntained in the aforementioned transcript. Because the transcript is accurate, and reflects statements made in open court, the district court properly denied the motion to strike.

IV. This litigation badly needs to come to an end. Donnell has received a substantial settlement, to which he agreed. He should not further burden the courts and d efendants with meritless attacks. We also remind him that sanctions are available for frivolous litigation.

The order s com

plained of are AFFIRMED. 1

1 All pending motions are DENIED, including, wit hout limitation, Donnell’s motions to remand, for appointment of counsel, and to hear the tape.