Filed: Jan. 12, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-50592 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-50592 USDC No. W-99-CV-20 LONNIE D. CLARK; ET AL., Plaintiffs, LONNIE D. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant versus DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT; FORT WORTH MID-BRAZOS PROJECT; LOUIS A. BRUNETT, Reservoir Manager; UNKNOWN GOVERNMENT AGENTS, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas - January 12, 2000 Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS
Summary: No. 99-50592 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-50592 USDC No. W-99-CV-20 LONNIE D. CLARK; ET AL., Plaintiffs, LONNIE D. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant versus DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT; FORT WORTH MID-BRAZOS PROJECT; LOUIS A. BRUNETT, Reservoir Manager; UNKNOWN GOVERNMENT AGENTS, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas - January 12, 2000 Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS,..
More
No. 99-50592
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50592
USDC No. W-99-CV-20
LONNIE D. CLARK; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
LONNIE D. CLARK,
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT;
FORT WORTH MID-BRAZOS PROJECT; LOUIS A. BRUNETT,
Reservoir Manager; UNKNOWN GOVERNMENT AGENTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
--------------------
January 12, 2000
Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its
own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby,
813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
Cir. 1987). We lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate
judge’s order denying him leave to proceed in a civil action
filed by his wife. Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc.,
883 F.2d 372,
379 (5th Cir. 1989). Moreover, Clark’s notice of appeal was
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-50592
-2-
untimely to challenge the district court’s order striking the
original complaint in the case. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1). Because
we lack jurisdiction, Clark’s appeal is DISMISSED and all
outstanding motions are DENIED.