Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41199 Conference Calendar DAVID L. KINSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus D. MATT LIVINGSTON, County Court at Law Judge, Henderson County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CV-212 - - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David L. Kinser appeals from the distr
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41199 Conference Calendar DAVID L. KINSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus D. MATT LIVINGSTON, County Court at Law Judge, Henderson County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CV-212 - - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David L. Kinser appeals from the distri..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41199
Conference Calendar
DAVID L. KINSER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
D. MATT LIVINGSTON,
County Court at Law Judge,
Henderson County, Texas,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:98-CV-212
- - - - - - - - - -
August 25, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David L. Kinser appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for the defendant in Kinser’s civil rights suit.
Kinser argues that the district court erred by determining that
the defendant was absolutely immune from suit pursuant to the
doctrine of judicial immunity. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Judicial officers are entitled to
absolute immunity from damages in civil actions arising out of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-41199
-2-
acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions.
Graves v. Hampton,
1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1993).
Kinser’s appeal is without arguable merit and, thus,
frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
5th Cir. R. 42.2. Kinser is warned that pursuing future
frivolous appeals will invite the imposition of sanctions.