* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20131

Summary Calendar

DANIEL T. MORRIS

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC., MYRON STEVES & CO., INC.,

TIMOTHY J. FANGUY, MARGARET A. WREN, TIM FANGUY, BAIL BOND

INC., A-1 UNLIMITED INC., LOUIS MARCOTTE III, BAIL BONDS

UNLIMITED LLC, MARCOTTE LLC, PEEPLES FINANCIAL SERVICE,

INC.

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

4:07-CV-1396

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following dismissal of his RICO action, Daniel Morris appeals the denial

of his motion for leave to file an amended complaint. We affirm.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20131

1 Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 356 (5th Cir. 2001).

2 Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 973 n.7 (5th Cir. 1983) (“An allegation that the

defendants are motived by some class based discrimination is essential to the maintenance of

a suit under the second portion of section 1582(2)”).

3 Atkinson v. Denton Pub. Co., 84 F.3d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 1996).

2

The district court dismissed Daniel Morris’ RICO action against

defendants because Morris lacked standing. Morris also maintained two

Louisiana causes of action. The RICO action provided the only ground for

federal jurisdiction over Morris’ claims and the district court also dismissed the

supplemental state law claims. Morris does not appeal the dismissal of the

RICO claim or state law claims.

Subsequently, Morris sought leave to file an amended complaint. In the

proposed amendment, Morris alleged that in a previous Louisiana state court

action, several ofthe defendants in this action had used threats and intimidation

to coerce him to abandon the litigation and to hinder his production of evidence.

Morris asserts these actions were in derogation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).

The district court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint is reviewed for

abuse of discretion.1In denying the motion, the district court noted that the

amended complaint failed as a matter of law to state a claim for relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1985(2) because Morris made no allegation of racial or class-based

animus.2 Morris’ amendment would have been futile. Moreover, Morris waited

six months from the inception of the action and until after dismissal of his only

federal claim to attempt to add the obstruction claim. We cannot find the

district court’s denial of Morris’ motion an abuse of discretion.

Morris also claims the district court denied him the use of discovery to

augment his amended complaint. Discovery matters are reviewed for an abuse

of discretion.3 The record contains no motions to allow or compel discovery

following the dismissal of the RICO and state law actions. Therefore, there is
No. 08-20131

3

no basis on which we could rule that the district court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.