Filed: Nov. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-50376 Summary Calendar _ GARY G. WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus K. C. LOVE, Doctor, Boyd Unit, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-95-CV-79 _ October 25, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Gary Gene Wright, # 612278, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights actions as frivolous pursuant t
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-50376 Summary Calendar _ GARY G. WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus K. C. LOVE, Doctor, Boyd Unit, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-95-CV-79 _ October 25, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Gary Gene Wright, # 612278, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights actions as frivolous pursuant to..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-50376
Summary Calendar
_____________________
GARY G. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
K. C. LOVE, Doctor,
Boyd Unit,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-95-CV-79
_________________________________________________________________
October 25, 1996
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gary Gene Wright, # 612278, appeals from the district court’s
order dismissing his civil rights actions as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He argues that Dr. Love was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation
of the Eighth Amendment. We have reviewed the record and Wright’s
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
brief and affirm the district court’s dismissal for essentially the
reasons adopted by the district court. Wright v. Love, No.
W-95-CV-79 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 1996). We do not address Wright’s
retaliation claim because it does not rise to the level of plain
error. See Robertson v. Plano City of Tex.,
70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Wright presents no legal points arguable on their merits, and
the appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220
(5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.
See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. We previously warned Wright in Wright v.
Carpenter, No. 95-10951 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 1996), that further
prosecution of frivolous matters in this court would invite the
imposition of sanctions and cautioned him to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they did not raise frivolous arguments.
Wright has not heeded this warning. Accordingly, Wright is barred
from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis civil appeal in this
court, or any pro se, in forma pauperis, initial civil pleading in
any court that is subject to this court’s jurisdiction, without the
advance written permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk
of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this
circuit are directed to return to Wright, unfiled, any attempted
submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
-2-
-3-