# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 10904

**Jason Levon Simmons,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Ray Jackson, Attorney; Texas Medical Board; Bianca San Miguel,**  as executrix of the Estate of Oscar San Miguel, substituted in place and stead of **Oscar San Miguel,** deceased **; Barbara Jordan,**

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CV

- 1700

Before **Elrod, Southwick,** and **Costa,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
After a series of amended complaints, Jason Simmons alleged claims
of RICO conspiracy, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract against his former attorneys Ray Jackson and Oscar San Miguel, the Texas Medical

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 27, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Cle rk Case: 19-10904 Document: 00515998126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2021No. 19

- 10904

2 Board, Methodist Hospital of Dallas, and Barbar a Jordan, an attorney for the hospital

. The district court dismissed the claims against Jackson, the Board, the Hospital, and Jordan

. The district court then granted summary judgment to San Miguel and entered final judgment as to all parties and claims. Simmons timely appealed

. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) (A) (iv); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Simmons asserts seven challenges to the district court’s order s

— none of his challenges has merit. First, Simmons contends that the district court failed to liberally construe his pro se pleadings, but there is no support in the record for this conclusory assertion. See Coleman v. United States , 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019 ).

Second , the district court did not abuse its discreti on in denying Simmons’s motion to file a post

- judgment affidavit merely to correct a
clerical error. See Russ v. Int’l Paper Co. , 943 F.2d 589, 593 (5th Cir. 1991).

Third, t he district court implicitly denied Simmons’s Rule 60(b)
motion when it said that it had already denied the motion, declared that “there is no Rule 60 motion pending,” and denied Simmons’s motion for a
h earing on the issue. On appeal, Simmons has not shown that the denial was “unwarranted,” let alone “so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of
discretion.” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. Unit A Jan. 1981). Case: 19-10904 Document: 00515998126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2021No. 19

- 10904

3 Fourth, the district court correctly dismissed Simmons’s complaints against the Hospital and Jackson under Rule 12(b)(6). 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; Sahara Health Care, Inc. v. Azar , 975 F.3d 523, 528 (5th Cir. 2020).
Fifth, the district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending resolution of Jordan’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
See Petrus v. Bowen , 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987).
Sixth, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Simmons’s motion to file a fifth amended complaint alleging a new
transaction. See Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n , 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5 th Cir. 20 14)

. Finally , Rule 52(b) motions are meant to “correct manifest errors of
law or fact.” Fontenot v. Mesa Petrol. Co. , 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986) ; accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) . The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to amend its judgment with additional factual findings. See
Fontenot , 791 F.2d at 1219.

The judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

.

1 A prior motions panel of this court dismissed both the Hospital and Jackson from th is appea l

. To the extent that the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal s of the Hospital and Jackson are now before us, we affirm the district court ’s order s

. Case: 19-10904 Document: 00515998126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/27/2021