Filed: Apr. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40981 LARRY D. McINNIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ERASMO E. BRAVO ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-96-CV-345 - - - - - - - - - - April 7, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Larry D. McInnis, Texas prisoner #651075, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on his appeal from the district
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40981 LARRY D. McINNIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ERASMO E. BRAVO ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-96-CV-345 - - - - - - - - - - April 7, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Larry D. McInnis, Texas prisoner #651075, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on his appeal from the district ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40981
LARRY D. McINNIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ERASMO E. BRAVO ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-96-CV-345
- - - - - - - - - -
April 7, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry D. McInnis, Texas prisoner #651075, seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on his appeal from the district
court’s order assessing the district-court filing fees required
by the Prison Litigation Act of 1995, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
His motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED.
McInnis paid an initial partial district-court filing fee of
more than the district court ordered him to pay. His appeal from
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-40981
- 2 -
the district court’s order therefore is moot, and we lack
jurisdiction to consider his contention that the district court’s
order was erroneous. Rocky v. King,
900 F.2d 864, 866-67 (5th
Cir. 1990).
APPEAL DISMISSED.