Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30903 S u m m ary C al en da r
E DWA R D S MI T H P l a i n tiff - A p p ell a n t v. UNI T ED S T AT ES F ED ERALGO VE RNMENT ; MAGI S T RA T E J UDGE STE PH EN C. RI ED LI N G ER , o f t he U ni t e d St at e s D i s t r i c tCour tf o rt he M i d d l e D i stri ct of

L ou i sian a ; E L IZ A B E T H H A E C K E R RYA N , A ttorn ey -atLa w o f t h e f i r m L e m l e & Ke l l e h e r ; W ACKENHU T CORP ; L EM LE & KE LLEH ER LLP D efen da n t s - A pp el l an t s

A pp ealf

rom th e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e M i ddl e D i s t r i c to f

Lo ui s i ana N o. 3: 09- C V

- 478

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * In t h i s app eal , E dw ard S m i t h chal l en ges t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof hi s s ui t i n whi c h he c l ai m e d t hatde fe nda nt s f r aud ul e nt l y o bt ai ne d aj udg m e nt
a g a i n s th i m. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 21, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30903 Document: 00511009727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2010N o. 09- 30903

2 T h i s ca se a ri ses ou t of an ea rl i er em p l oy m en t dis c r im in a ti on su i t Sm i th f i l ed ag ai n sthi s em pl oyer W acken h u tC orporati on i n the U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct Cour tf o r the M i ddl e D i s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana . Af

t e rdi s c o ve r y c o m m e nc e d, M a g is t r a t e J u d g e S t e p h e n R ie d li n g e rr e c o m m e n d e dth e d is m is s a l o f S m it h ’s
c a s e w h e n h e r e p e a t e d l yfa il e dto m e e td is c o v e r yd e a d li n e s . T h e m a g is t r a t e ’s
recom m en da t i on w as subseq u en t ly a pp roved an d the di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed t he s ui to n Augus t1 9, 2 00 8. Tha tj udg m e ntw as no ta ppe al e d. S m i t h t h en f

i l ed this sui ton Ju l y 23, 200 9 aga i n stA pp el l ees t h e U n i t ed S ta te s , M a g is tr a te J u d g e R i e d l in g e r , h is fo r m e re m p lo y e ra n dits co u n s e l,
c l ai m i ng t hatt hey f

r audul ent l y c oll uded t o di sm i ss hi s suit
. O n A ugust3, 2009,
a m ag istr ate j u dg e f i l ed a report recom m en di n g t h at th i s s u i tbe di sm i ssed agai nstal lpar t i es as f r ivol ous purs uant t o 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 1915. Th e di st r i c tj udge
ac c e pt e d t he m ag i s t r at e ’ s r e c o m m e nda t i o ns and ent e r e d j udg m e ntdi s m i s s i ng t h i s s u i tw i t h prej u di ce. Sm i t h now app eal s. F or th e rea son s th oro u gh l y a d d ress ed i n the m a g istrate j u d ge ’ s rep ort, bo t h t he U ni t e d St at e s a nd M ag i s t r at e Jud ge St e phe n Ri e dl i nge ra r e i m m une f ro m s ui t
. Addi t i o nall y, Sm i t h’ s br i e f t o t hi s c o ur t fail s t o ad dr e s s anyi ssues reg a rd i n g h i s f

orm er em p l oy er a n di ts cou n sel. T h ere for e , S m i th ’ s ar gu m en ts aga i n stW acken h u t , R yan , an d L em l e K el l eh er are w a ive d a n d consi dered
a b a n d o n e d
. S e ePr o c te r& G a m b le Co . v . A m w ayCo r p ., 3 7 6 F
. 3 d49 6 , 49 9 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e r e fo r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t is AF FI RM ED Case: 09-30903 Document: 00511009727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2010