IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 96-31312 _____________________ LARRY D. CROWE; SUE ELLEN SILMAN CROWE, Administratrix, on behalf of Reba Coody Crowe Succession, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus JAMES W. SMITH, ET AL., Defendants, DEUTSCH KERRIGAN & STILES; JUDY L. BURNTHORN; WILLIAM WRIGHT; JAMES BERRY; DAVID C. TREEN; WILLIAM W. MESSERSMITH, III; CHARLES K. REASONOVER; DAVID L. CAMPBELL; CHARLES F. SEEMANN, JR.; BERTRAND M. CASS, JR.; HARRY S. ANDERSON; FRANCIS J. BARRY, JR.; PATRICK J. BERRIGAN; ALLEN F. CAMPBELL; MATT J. FARLEY; G. ALEX WELLER; DANIEL A. SMITH; ETHEL H. COHEN; TERRENCE L. BRENNAN; MARC J. YELLIN; HOWARD L. MURPHY; DARRELL K. CHERRY; RICHARD B. MONTGOMERY; PAUL S. HUGHES; NANCY J. MARSHALL; JAMES G. WILEY, III; D. REX ENGLISH; ELLIS B. MUROV; JOSEPH L. McREYNOLDS; JOSEPH L. SPILMAN, III; DURIS L. HOLMES; WILLIAM LEE KOHLER; ATTORNEYS LIABILITY ASSURANCE SOCIETY, INC., Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe (92-CV-2163) _________________________________________________________________ April 10, 1998 Before GIBSON,* JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:** The only question before us in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing this case with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed and considered fully the circumstances and context in which this judgment was entered, including the related matter of the Crowes’ purported prior notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Additionally, we have had the benefit of full briefing and argument by counsel. We finally conclude that when all the circumstances and authorities have been considered, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is A F F I R M E D. * Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. -2-