Court Opinion

ID: 18555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:16:37+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:00.229798
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 98-11029
                       _____________________

          MICHAEL J. MONCRIEF, Etc.; ET AL,

                               Plaintiffs,

          v.

          W.A. “TEX” MONCRIEF, JR., Etc.; ET AL,

                               Defendants.

                       --------------------

          W.A. “TEX” MONCRIEF, JR.; CHARLES B. MONCRIEF;
          RICHARD W. MONCRIEF; MONTEX DRILLING COMPANY,

                          Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees,

          v.

          BILLY W. JARVIS,

                          Third Party Defendant-Appellant,

          v.

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                              Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                          (4:98-CV-528-E)
_________________________________________________________________

                         September 9, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, STEWART, Circuit Judge, and ROSENTHAL,
District Judge*.

     *
        District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting
by designation.
PER CURIAM:**

     The court has jurisdiction over this appeal.   See City of

Waco v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 293 U.S. 140

(1934).

     On brief and at length at oral argument, appellant claimed

that he was denied the opportunity in the district court to

develop the necessary facts.   That argument is devoid of merit.

The district court’s Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration

and Clarifying Order entered July 7, 1998 specifically advised

that “[i]f a party wishes to assert a right to an evidentiary

hearing or request further discovery on an issue, he may do so by

filing an appropriate written request in a timely fashion.”   If,

indeed, appellant failed to take advantage of that invitation,

the problem is of his own making.

     The Order of the District Court entered August 3, 1998

denying appellant’s Petition for Certification is affirmed for

substantially the reasons stated in that Order.

     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.

                                 2