Case Name: Clifford Allen SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Suzanne RATCLIFF, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-04
Citations: 239 F. App'x 91
Docket Number: No. 06-41189
Parties: Clifford Allen SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Suzanne RATCLIFF, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 91–91

Head Matter:
Clifford Allen SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Suzanne RATCLIFF, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-41189
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 4, 2007.
Clifford Allen Smith, Galveston, TX, pro se.
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clifford Allen Smith, Texas prisoner # 184026, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Judge Suzanne Ratcliff to recover damages for an alleged infringement of his constitutional rights that occurred when Judge Ratcliff denied his request for a continuance during a hearing on a motion for a protective order. The district court determined that Judge Rat-cliff was entitled to judicial immunity and dismissed Smith's suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Smith argues that Judge Ratcliff is not entitled to judicial immunity because she was without jurisdiction to consider the motion. Smith also argues that Judge Ratcliff infringed his rights by denying his request for a continuance.
Smith's arguments are unavailing. The disputed acts were judicial in nature. See Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124 (5th Cir.1993). Further, Judge Ratcliff was not completely without jurisdiction to consider the motion. See id. Judge Rat-cliff is thus entitled to judicial immunity. See id.
Smith has shown no error in the judgment of the district court. Consequently, that judgment is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.