Case Name: Danny R. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Owen ROCKETT; Sheriffs Department Richland Parish; Leann Thomason; Louisiana Department of Probation & Parole; William R. Coenen, Jr.; Office of District Attorney, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-20
Citations: 73 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 02-31221
Parties: Danny R. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Owen ROCKETT; Sheriffs Department Richland Parish; Leann Thomason; Louisiana Department of Probation & Parole; William R. Coenen, Jr.; Office of District Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 73
Pages: 697–697

Head Matter:
Danny R. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Owen ROCKETT; Sheriffs Department Richland Parish; Leann Thomason; Louisiana Department of Probation & Parole; William R. Coenen, Jr.; Office of District Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-31221.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 2003.
Danny Jefferson, Epps, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John F. Weeks, II, Usry, Weeks & Matthews, New Orleans, LA, William Robert Coenen, Jr., K. Douglas Wheeler, Rayville, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Danny R. Jefferson appeals from the dismissal of his civil-rights complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but specifically limits his appeal to the district court's denial of his motion for entry of default judgment against defendants Leann Tho-mason and the Probation and Parole Board. He argues that his motion for default judgment should have been granted because he properly served both of these defendants with a summons and complaint and these defendants failed to file an answer in response within 20 days of that service.
Jefferson's motion for entry of default judgment was denied because the district court held that Jefferson had not shown that these two defendants were properly served. Jefferson has not shown that the district court's denial of that motion constituted an abuse of discretion. See Thomas v. Kippermann, 846 F.2d 1009, 1011 (5th Cir.1988). Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. All of Jefferson's outstanding motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.