Court Opinion

ID: 20510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:35:09+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:47.053247
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                        _____________________

                             No. 99-20713
                           Summary Calendar
                        _____________________

CHARLES DENNIS SMITH,

                                                Plaintiff-Appellant,

                               versus

VERNETTE PORTER; ROCHELLE McKENNEY;
OWEN MURRAY; F. CHERIAN, Dr.;
NEVA YARBOROUGH,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. H-96-CV-4287
_________________________________________________________________
                           April 4, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Charles Dennis Smith, Texas prisoner # 734317, appeals the

district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider the

summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

complaint.     Smith alleged that the defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs.

     Smith has not shown that any of the grounds enumerated in Rule

60(b)(1) to (5) are present and has not shown that extraordinary

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
circumstances exist that would warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

See Government Fin. Servs. One Ltd. Partnership v. Peyton Place,

Inc., 62 F.3d 767, 773-74 (5th Cir. 1995).      Smith has not shown

that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in denying his Rule

60(b) motion for relief from the judgment.     See Seven Elves, Inc.

v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981)(en banc).    Smith’s

appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED.       See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Smith is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by

him will invite the imposition of sanctions.    To avoid sanctions,

Smith is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure

that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they

have been previously decided by this court.

                      APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

                                2