Case Name: Sonya L. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-24
Citations: 235 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 06-10830
Parties: Sonya L. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
Sonya L. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-10830
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 24, 2007.
Sonya Lashawn Chapman, Dallas, TX, pro se.
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Sonya Chapman appeals the district court's order dismissing her complaint. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed Chapman's complaint for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) and, in the alternative, because the complaint was legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®.
This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard of review to a dismissal for want of prosecution or for failure to obey a court order for. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1032 (5th Cir.1998). Furthermore, "[w]e review a determination that a case is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of discretion." Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir.2002).
We agree with the magistrate's report that Chapman has been given ample opportunity to comply with the court's orders and that, given her representations, her complaint is untimely and frivolous as a matter of law. See Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir.1993). Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm for the reasons stated in the report adopted by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.