Filed: Nov. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40649 Conference Calendar WILLIAM EARL DOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus REINFORD KANE, Lt.; FNU MILLER; J. DETRICE; ED MCELUEN, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:96-CV-136 - - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* William Earl Doyle, Texas prisoner #556
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40649 Conference Calendar WILLIAM EARL DOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus REINFORD KANE, Lt.; FNU MILLER; J. DETRICE; ED MCELUEN, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:96-CV-136 - - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* William Earl Doyle, Texas prisoner #5564..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40649
Conference Calendar
WILLIAM EARL DOYLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
REINFORD KANE, Lt.; FNU MILLER;
J. DETRICE; ED MCELUEN,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:96-CV-136
- - - - - - - - - -
October 24, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Earl Doyle, Texas prisoner #556492, appeals from the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action as
frivolous. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds. See
Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc.,
964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-40649
- 2 -
Doyle argues for the first time on appeal that he wrote the
wrong date in his statement of facts as to when the incident
occurred and that, as a result, the limitations period had not
yet run when he filed his complaint. Doyle has shown no plain
error with respect to this belated allegation. Robertson v.
Plano City of Tex.,
70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).
AFFIRMED.