Case Name: Kenneth A. HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth L. LAY; Andrew Fastow; J. Clifford Baxter, Estate; Enron Corp., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-29
Citations: 205 F. App'x 194
Docket Number: No. 03-20443
Parties: Kenneth A. HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth L. LAY; Andrew Fastow; J. Clifford Baxter, Estate; Enron Corp., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
Kenneth A. HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth L. LAY; Andrew Fastow; J. Clifford Baxter, Estate; Enron Corp., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-20443
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 29, 2004.
Kenneth A. Hinton, Winton, NC, pro se.
Gregory Scott Coleman, Jennifer Suzanne Smith, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Hinton, federal prisoner # 17746-016, appeals the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal of his complaint of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants. Hinton contends that he complied with two of the district court's orders to file a more definite statement and that the district court's dismissal of his complaint under Rule 41(b) was an abuse of discretion. He also challenges the district court's denial of his motion to be joined in a multidistrict action against Enron.
Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion when it dismissed Hinton's complaint following his failure to respond to two orders for him to show cause. See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.1988); McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 792 (5th Cir.1988). The district court's denial of Hinton's motion to be joined in the multidistrict suit against Enron was also not error.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.