Filed: Jun. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-31285 Conference Calendar MARY ANN BIDDLE LOVELL, on behalf of Edmond White, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CLAIBORNE MANOR NURSING HOME INC.; BILL COPELAND, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-275 - June 13, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This appeal stems from a long string of frivolous lawsuits filed by
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-31285 Conference Calendar MARY ANN BIDDLE LOVELL, on behalf of Edmond White, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CLAIBORNE MANOR NURSING HOME INC.; BILL COPELAND, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-275 - June 13, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This appeal stems from a long string of frivolous lawsuits filed by ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31285
Conference Calendar
MARY ANN BIDDLE LOVELL,
on behalf of Edmond White, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CLAIBORNE MANOR NURSING HOME INC.;
BILL COPELAND,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-275
--------------------
June 13, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This appeal stems from a long string of frivolous lawsuits
filed by Mary Ann Biddle Lovell in connection with the events
surrounding the succession of Mrs. Meaker Glover White. In the
instant appeal, Lovell challenges the district court’s award of a
$2,500 sanction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. She argues that
(1) there existed no legal process under which sanctions could
have been ordered; (2) the defendants lacked standing to request
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-31285
-2-
sanctions; and (3) the defendants failed to prove the assessment
and fees which supported the award of sanctions.
This court ordinarily reviews the imposition of sanctions
for an abuse of discretion. See Riley v. City of Jackson, Miss.,
99 F.3d 757, 759 (5th Cir. 1996). However, because Lovell failed
to raise any of her current arguments in her objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, review of the
sanction order is for plain error only. See Douglass v. United
Services Auto. Ass’n,
79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)(en
banc). To prevail on plain-error review, an appellant must show
that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was clear or obvious,
(3) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) not correcting
the error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings. Highlands Ins. Co. v.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,
27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32
(5th Cir. 1994).
Lovell has not shown plain error in connection with the
sanction order. See
id. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED. After having warned Lovell that many
of her appeals were frivolous, this court sanctioned Lovell $105
for pursuing a frivolous appeal. See Lovell v. Claiborne Manor
Nursing Home, No. 00-30735 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 2000)(unpublished).
Upon dismissing another of Lovell’s appeals, this court ordered
Lovell to pay a $250 sanction. See Lovell v. Greer, No. 00-30878
(5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2001)(unpublished). We DIRECT the clerk of
this court and the clerks of all federal district courts within
this Circuit to refuse to file any pro se civil complaint or
No. 00-31285
-3-
appeal by Lovell unless Lovell submits proof of satisfaction of
the sanction imposed in both Lovell, No. 00-30735, and in Lovell,
No. 00-30878.
AFFIRMED.