Case Name: Barry ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. CARLOW, Judge Bowie County; Greg Abbott, Attorney General State of Texas, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-21
Citations: 111 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 03-41673
Parties: Barry ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. CARLOW, Judge Bowie County; Greg Abbott, Attorney General State of Texas, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
Barry ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. CARLOW, Judge Bowie County; Greg Abbott, Attorney General State of Texas, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-41673.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 21, 2004.
Barry Alexander, New Boston, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Barry Alexander appeals from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This court reviews such a dismissal de novo. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir.1994).
Alexander argues that: (1) the district court judge should have recused himself; (2) the district court failed to recognize the denial of certain previous lawsuits involving Alexander and his family members; and (3) the district court failed to provide Alexander with a jury trial regarding his claims. The record does not support Alexander's argument that the district court judge should have recused himself. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). Alexander's argument regarding previous lawsuits fails to raise a cognizable issue for review. Moreover, Alexander was not deprived of his right to a jury trial. See, e.g., Odum v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 288 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1961).
Alexander'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. We caution Alexander that the filing of frivolous appeals and motions will invite the imposition of a sanction.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.