Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gibson v. McCoy, 96-40242 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 96-40242 Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 14, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40242 Summary Calendar _ DENNIS GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus B.J. McCOY, Sheriff, Lamar County; DANNY PHILLIPS, Lamar County Jail Supt.; BERNARD MALONE, Medical Coordinator, Lamar County Jail, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 3-95-CV-26 _ October 24, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dennis Gibson, #671892, ar
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 96-40242 Summary Calendar _______________________ DENNIS GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus B.J. McCOY, Sheriff, Lamar County; DANNY PHILLIPS, Lamar County Jail Supt.; BERNARD MALONE, Medical Coordinator, Lamar County Jail, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 3-95-CV-26 _________________________________________________________________ October 24, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dennis Gibson, #671892, argues that the district court erred in dismissing as frivolous his claim that he was denied access to legal materials and legal assistance. * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district court, and the briefs, and find that the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous should be affirmed substantially for the reasons adopted by the district court. See Gibson v. McCoy, No. 3:95-CV-26 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 1995). Gibson also argues that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his claim that he was denied adequate medical care. We have also reviewed the record and the briefs with respect to this claim, and determine that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, substantially for the reasons adopted by the district court. See Gibson v. McCoy, No. 3:95-CV-26 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 1995). Finally, Gibson is hereby placed on notice that should he continue to file frivolous lawsuits, he will be subject to sanctions by this court. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer