*

 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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. 97-10198

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIAM STEVE MCGREW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GEORGE W. BUSH, Governor

of Texas; TEXAS BOARD OF 

PARDON & PAROLES, CHIEF

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS; TEXAS

DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

WILLIAM STEVE MCGREW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AMY BROOME, Wichita County

District Attorney; JOHN

HOGAN, Judge, County Court 

of Law No. 1; JANICE RALSTON

SONS, Judge, Justice of the

Peace; WF CITY ATTORNEY;

JUDGE GILLEN, Municipal

Court, 

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:96-CV-56-X C/W

No. 7:96-CV-57-X

- - - - - - - - - -

December 17, 1997

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 97-10198

-2-

William Steve McGrew, Texas state prisoner # 374537, argues

that the district court abused its discretion in consolidating his

two civil rights complaints. The cases involved common questions

of law and fact and their disposition in one proceeding served the

interest of judicial economy. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in consolidating the actions. See Dillard v. Merrill

Lynch, Pierce, Genner & Smith, Inc., 961 F.2d 1148, 1161 (5th Cir.

1992).

McGrew argues that the district court abused its discretion in

referring the cases to the magistrate judge for the preparation of

findings and a recommendation. The district court properly

referred the cases to the magistrate judge for a recommendation

concerning whether the actions should be dismissed for

frivolousness. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Spears v. McCotter, 766

F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1985). 

McGrew argues that the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing his complaint as frivolous because the allegations

reflect that the defendants’ outrageous conduct resulted in the

revocation of his parole and his false imprisonment. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

the complaints under Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994)

because McGrew has not demonstrated that the revocation of his

parole has been reversed, invalidated, or otherwise set aside.

Therefore, any 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for damages that McGrew
No. 97-10198

-3-

may have has not yet accrued. The district court properly

dismissed the complaints as frivolous. 

McGrew’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

McGrew is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by

him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To

avoid sanctions, McGrew should review any pending appeals to ensure

that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. 

McGrew’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See

Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). McGrew’s

motions to supplement the record and for the imposition of

sanctions against the appellees are also DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING GIVEN.