Case Name: Lawrence W. FITZGERALD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. MERCK AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-17
Citations: 418 F. App'x 366
Docket Number: No. 10-30103
Parties: Lawrence W. FITZGERALD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. MERCK AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 418
Pages: 366–366

Head Matter:
Lawrence W. FITZGERALD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. MERCK AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-30103
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 17, 2011.
Lawrence W. Fitzgerald, Jr., Sterling, CO, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This is Lawrence W. Fitzgerald, Jr.'s second appeal to this court. In his first appeal, this court denied his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and dismissed his appeal as frivolous. At that point, the district court had denied his motion to proceed IFP in the district court and stated that his case was closed.
This appeal is arguably from the district court's denial of Fitzgerald's motion to file an amended complaint in the district court and of his subsequent motion to amend/ correct the judgment. In its order on the motion to amend the district court reiterated that there was no open case in which the amendment can be filed. Accordingly, nothing has happened in the interim since the last appeal to merit a different result in this appeal.
In addition, Fitzgerald has filed a motion seeking a limited remand to the district court (1) to have all filing fees either applied to a new claim against Merck or returned to him, and (2) to have the Special Administrator appointed to review his medical records and appoint him as a party to the current Vioxx Settlement case in process. The motion also requests that this court place this case on Tolled Status pending action by the district court on the limited remand. Fitzgerald cites no legal authority to support his right to such relief and we can discern none.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Fitzgerald's motions.
AFFIRMED; MOTION 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.