Case Name: In re: VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Sergi Chepilko, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merck and Company, Inc., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-01
Citations: 393 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 09-30445
Parties: In re: VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Sergi Chepilko, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merck and Company, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
In re: VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Sergi Chepilko, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merck and Company, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-30445
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 1, 2010.
Sergi Chepilko, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone, Pigman, Walther & Wittmann, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appearing pro se, the plaintiff-appellant, Sergi Chepilko, has filed a three-page brief. It is difficult to tell what legal claims he makes on appeal. The only issue stated is "[wjhether District Court correctly dismissed with prejudice all claims of plaintiff for failure to comply with PreTrial Order 28."
Chepilko asserts that he "did not receive from the District Court numerous PreTrial Orders, including PTO-28----" He states that "[ijstead, Vioxx claims Adminis trator offered plaintiff to enroll in the Settlement Program," which he did. He declined to sign the stipulation of dismissal because, as he posits, he
had real concerns that such demand without consideration of the settlement offer could be fraudulent and addressed this issue to the court. Nobody explained [to] plaintiff why such stipulation of dismissal requires upfront unconditional signing.
Chepilko asserts that being required to sign the stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to the settlement, is "illegal." That claim is without merit. Because he has shown no reversible error, the judgment of dismissal 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.