Filed: Jun. 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-10052 Conference Calendar VERLIE LEE HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:96-CV-115 - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Verlie Lee Henderson, Texas inmate #199786, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of his
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-10052 Conference Calendar VERLIE LEE HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:96-CV-115 - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Verlie Lee Henderson, Texas inmate #199786, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of his c..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 97-10052
Conference Calendar
VERLIE LEE HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:96-CV-115
---------------------
June 16, 1998
Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Verlie Lee Henderson, Texas inmate #199786, seeks to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of his
civil rights complaint. The district court certified pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) that Henderson’s appeal was not taken in
good faith. Henderson’s motion for IFP is treated as a challenge
to the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117
F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Because Henderson fails to show that he will raise a
meritorious issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 47.5.4.
No. 97-10052
-2-
See Varnado v. Lynaugh,
920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); Howard v. King,
707
F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Henderson’s motions to consolidate,
for the appointment of counsel, and for judicial notice are also
DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.