Filed: Aug. 23, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20081 Conference Calendar DALE D. NESFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; NICHOLAS BACHKO CO., INC.; NATIONAL MARITIME UNION, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CV-4426 - August 22, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dale Nesfield appeals the district court’s order dismissing
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20081 Conference Calendar DALE D. NESFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; NICHOLAS BACHKO CO., INC.; NATIONAL MARITIME UNION, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CV-4426 - August 22, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dale Nesfield appeals the district court’s order dismissing h..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20081
Conference Calendar
DALE D. NESFIELD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; NICHOLAS
BACHKO CO., INC.; NATIONAL MARITIME
UNION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CV-4426
--------------------
August 22, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dale Nesfield appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his lawsuit on the basis of res judicata and on Nesfield’s
failure to receive permission before filing the suit. Nesfield’s
brief addresses neither of these matters. As Nesfield’s brief
does not identify any district court error, it is frivolous and
the appeal is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-
20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-20081
-2-
We previously cautioned Nesfield that any additional
frivolous appeals would invite the imposition of sanctions and
cautioned him to review pending appeals to ensure that they were
not frivolous. See Nesfield v. National Maritime Union, No. 99-
21022 (5th Cir. June 16, 2000)(unpublished). This court may
impose sanctions on a litigant sua sponte. See Coghlan v.
Starkey,
852 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED that Nesfield is sanctioned $100. IT IS ALSO ORDERED
that Nesfield remit payment to the clerk of the district court.
Nesfield is warned that further frivolous appeals will result in
the imposition of additional sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.