Filed: Aug. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-20346 USDC No. H-92-CV-859 _ MICHAEL ANTHONY EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES A. COLLINS, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; D. STEVENS, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - - - - - - - - - - July 30, 1996 Before DAVIS, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Michael Anthony Evans, TDCJ #
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-20346 USDC No. H-92-CV-859 _ MICHAEL ANTHONY EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES A. COLLINS, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; D. STEVENS, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - - - - - - - - - - July 30, 1996 Before DAVIS, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Michael Anthony Evans, TDCJ # 4..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-20346
USDC No. H-92-CV-859
__________________
MICHAEL ANTHONY EVANS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS, Director
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Institutional Division;
D. STEVENS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
- - - - - - - - - -
July 30, 1996
Before DAVIS, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Anthony Evans, TDCJ # 497500, moves for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), arguing that the district court
improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment
and dismissed his Eighth Amendment claim based on calculated
harassment.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-20346
-2-
Evans, however, has identified no reversible error in the
dismissal. See Evans v. Collins, No. H-92-CV-859 (S.D. Tex. Mar.
29, 1996). His appeal fails to present a nonfrivolous issue; the
motion for IFP is DENIED. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't,
811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). The appeal is DISMISSED. 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.