Filed: Jun. 22, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-31353 Summary Calendar RICHARD MCKEATHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RICHARD L. STALDER; ET AL., Defendants, WILLIAM MIKE GILLIAM, Warden; MIKE PHILLIPS; AMANDA MOORE; MARCELL MILLS, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CV-1297 _ June 21, 2001 Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the cour
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-31353 Summary Calendar RICHARD MCKEATHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RICHARD L. STALDER; ET AL., Defendants, WILLIAM MIKE GILLIAM, Warden; MIKE PHILLIPS; AMANDA MOORE; MARCELL MILLS, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CV-1297 _ June 21, 2001 Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31353
Summary Calendar
RICHARD MCKEATHEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD L. STALDER; ET AL.,
Defendants,
WILLIAM MIKE GILLIAM, Warden; MIKE PHILLIPS;
AMANDA MOORE; MARCELL MILLS,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 95-CV-1297
_________________________________________
June 21, 2001
Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Richard McKeathen appeals the district court's order denying his post-
judgment motion for leave to file a third supplemental and amending complaint
which restates his claim for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
McKeathen did not ask the trial court to vacate the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59 or 60. Nor has he made any effort to show that he could not have raised the
allegations in his proposed supplemental and amended complaint prior to the district
court's merits ruling.1 Our review of the record persuades that McKeathen has not
shown that the district court abused its discretion in this matter.2
The order appealed is AFFIRMED.
1
Vielma v. Eureka Co.,
218 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2000).
2
Briddle v. Scott,
63 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 1995).
2