Filed: Dec. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-50323 Summary Calendar ROBERT ERIK KESSLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WYSOKI, Dr.; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORPORATION; PAUL BAILEY, Administrator, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CV-282 - - - - - - - - - - November 26, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Erick Kessler (#63980 080) appeals
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-50323 Summary Calendar ROBERT ERIK KESSLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WYSOKI, Dr.; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORPORATION; PAUL BAILEY, Administrator, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CV-282 - - - - - - - - - - November 26, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Erick Kessler (#63980 080) appeals t..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50323
Summary Calendar
ROBERT ERIK KESSLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WYSOKI, Dr.; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS
CORPORATION; PAUL BAILEY, Administrator,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-95-CV-282
- - - - - - - - - -
November 26, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Erick Kessler (#63980 080) appeals the district
court’s judgment dismissing his civil-rights action. Kessler
also appeals the district court’s refusal to appoint counsel to
represent him in the district court. We have carefully reviewed
the briefs and the record. Essentially for reasons relied upon
by the district court, we hold that the district court properly
granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Kessler
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 96-50323
- 2 -
v. Wysoki, No. SA-95-CA-282 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 1996).
The refusal to appoint counsel was not an abuse of
discretion. See Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th
Cir. 1982). The judgment is AFFIRMED. Kessler has moved this
court for appointment of counsel. Because Kessler has failed to
show exceptional circumstances require the appointment of
counsel, see
id., the motion is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.