Filed: Dec. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20516 Conference Calendar DONALD RAY McCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBERT LOWER, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-5710 - - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Donald Ray McCray, # 620694, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his in forma pauperis complaint
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20516 Conference Calendar DONALD RAY McCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBERT LOWER, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-5710 - - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Donald Ray McCray, # 620694, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his in forma pauperis complaint a..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20516
Conference Calendar
DONALD RAY McCRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT LOWER,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-95-5710
- - - - - - - - - -
August 21, 1996
Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Ray McCray, # 620694, appeals from the district court’s
dismissal of his in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the relevant portion of which has since
been redesignated as § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) by § 804 of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996).
We have reviewed the record and McCray’s brief and find no abuse of
discretion. Because McCray’s complaint lacks an arguable basis in
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 96-20516
- 2 -
law, his appeal is frivolous. See Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc.,
964
F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992). Because the appeal is frivolous, it
is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. McCray’s motion for deposition
testimony is DENIED.
This court previously cautioned McCray that he risked the
imposition of sanctions if he continued to file meritless
complaints and cautioned him to review any pending appeals to avoid
the imposition of sanctions. See McCray v. Stripling, No. 96-10554
(July 2, 1996); McCray v. Fish, No. 95-10451 (June 5, 1995).
Accordingly, McCray 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 which 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 McCray, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent
with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED. MOTION DENIED. SANCTIONS IMPOSED.