* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11336

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL C. KERR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF KENNEDALE; C.B.

LANCASTER, Officially;

GEORGE THOMPSON, Officially;

C.B. LANCASTER, Personally;

GEORGE THOMPSON, Personally,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-474-Y

- - - - - - - - - - July 29, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael C. Kerr appea ls from the district court’s order

grant ing summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing his

complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the

district court erred in finding that the City of Kennedale had not

violated Kerr ’s constitutional rights; that the district court

erred in finding that Judge Thompson was en titled to absoluteNo. 97-11336

-2-

immunity and that Officer Lancaster was entitled to qualified

immunity; and that the district court erred in finding that Kerr

had not stated any claims under state law. Kerr further argues

tha t the district court abused its discretion in refusing to

consider his second amended complaint and in quashing his motions

for discovery.

After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we

find that the district court did not err in finding that Kerr had

failed to present any issues of material fact and that all three

defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. S ee

Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en

banc)(The nonmovant’s bur den of going beyond the pleadings and

designati ng specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue

for trial is not satisfied by conclusional allegations or

unsubstantiated assertions). We further find that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider Kerr’s

second amended complaint or in quashing his motions for discovery.

See Paul Kadair, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America

, 694 F.2d 1017, 1030

(5th Cir. 1983)(A plaintiff’s entitlement to discovery or leave to

amend in the face of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment may

be cut off where plaintiff fails to produce any specific facts

whatsoever to support a[n] allegation).

Litigants should not be deterred from advancing any claim or

defense which is arguably supported by existing law, or any

reasonably based suggestion for its extension, modificati on, orNo. 97-11336

-3-

reversal. F arguson v. Mbank Houston, N.A.

, 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th

Cir. 1986). However, an appeal is frivolous if the result is

obvious or the arguments of error are wholly without merit.

Coughlan v. Starkey , 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988). That an

appellant’s filings are pro se is not an impenetrable shield, for

one acting pro s e has no license to harass others, clog the

judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already

overloaded court dockets. F arguson

, 808 F.2d at 359. Though novel

constitutional theories should not be chilled, under Fed. R. App.

38, an appellant is subject to sanction for a frivolous appeal the

result of which is obvious from the comprehensive and decisive

exposition of the law by the judge below. C oughlin

, 852 F.2d at

810.

To bring suit, as Kerr did, in federal court over a speeding

ticket and the normal legal consequences attendant to ignoring the

same, is marginally non-frivolous at best. To then pursue the same

claims on appeal after the district court disp osed of them in a

comprehensive and decisive exposition of the law is a waste of

federal resources. The appeal lacks arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. We caution Kerr that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behal f will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Kerr is further cautioned to review

any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED, 5th Cir. R. 42.2. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED