Filed: Apr. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20038 Conference Calendar RAY LEE MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BROWN & wILLIAMSON; RJ REYNOLDS TOBACCO CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-2116 - April 11, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ray Lee Morgan, Texas prisoner # 299341, challenges the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20038 Conference Calendar RAY LEE MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BROWN & wILLIAMSON; RJ REYNOLDS TOBACCO CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-2116 - April 11, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ray Lee Morgan, Texas prisoner # 299341, challenges the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of h..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20038
Conference Calendar
RAY LEE MORGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BROWN & wILLIAMSON; RJ REYNOLDS
TOBACCO CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-2116
--------------------
April 11, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ray Lee Morgan, Texas prisoner # 299341, challenges the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil lawsuit
against two tobacco companies, alleging that they had caused him
to become addicted to tobacco, which he has smoked for 35 years,
injuring his respiratory system.
Morgan has not alleged any basis for federal jurisdiction,
and the district court’s dismissal of his complaint was thus
proper. See Bickford v. Int’l Speedway Corp.,
654 F.2d 1028,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20038
-2-
1031 (5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment
is AFFIRMED.