Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lyle v. Price, 96-60368 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 96-60368 Visitors: 24
Filed: Dec. 16, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-60368 Conference Calendar JAMES M. LYLE, IV, ET AL., Plaintiffs, JAMES M. LYLE, IV; CHARLES HAMPTON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus JOE PRICE, Sheriff; RICK GASTON, Capt., Warden; FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:92-CV-578-GR - December 15, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-60368 Conference Calendar JAMES M. LYLE, IV, ET AL., Plaintiffs, JAMES M. LYLE, IV; CHARLES HAMPTON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus JOE PRICE, Sheriff; RICK GASTON, Capt., Warden; FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Defendants-Appellees. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:92-CV-578-GR -------------------- December 15, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* James M. Lyle, IV (Prisoner No. 02386) and Charles Hampton (Prisoner No. 03230-043) seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), following the district court’s certification that their appeals from the judgment in favor of the defendants in a civil- rights complaint are taken in bad faith. Lyle and Hampton argue * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 96-60368 -2- that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that there was no factual basis for their claims. Neither Hampton nor Lyle have shown that they can bring any claims of arguable merit on appeal. Accordingly, both IFP motions are DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer