Filed: Aug. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-50261 Conference Calendar PETE BENAVIDES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THOMAS E. BARBER; BURLESON COUNTY TEXAS; FRANK L. KRISTOF; DON L. GRACE; W.J. STRACENER, JR.; JOHN B. LANDOLT, JR.; BOB DOONAN, County Judge, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-832-JN - August 21, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-50261 Conference Calendar PETE BENAVIDES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THOMAS E. BARBER; BURLESON COUNTY TEXAS; FRANK L. KRISTOF; DON L. GRACE; W.J. STRACENER, JR.; JOHN B. LANDOLT, JR.; BOB DOONAN, County Judge, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-832-JN - August 21, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50261
Conference Calendar
PETE BENAVIDES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THOMAS E. BARBER; BURLESON COUNTY TEXAS;
FRANK L. KRISTOF; DON L. GRACE; W.J. STRACENER, JR.;
JOHN B. LANDOLT, JR.; BOB DOONAN, County Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-00-CV-832-JN
--------------------
August 21, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pete Benavides, Texas state prisoner # 281936, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) of his civil rights complaint. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He argues that the district court abused its discretion
in dismissing as frivolous his denial-of-access-to-courts claim
and in denying his motion to supplement and/or to amend his
complaint.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50261
-2-
We have reviewed the record and the brief and discern no
abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of
Benavides’s claims. See Harper v. Showers,
174 F.3d 716, 718
(5th Cir. 1999); Degrate v. Godwin,
84 F.3d 768, 769 (5th Cir.
1996). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in
denying Benavides’s motion for leave to supplement and/or to
amend his complaint. See Ashe v. Corley,
992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th
Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.