Filed: Dec. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10271 Summary Calendar CARLOS M. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, DAVID L. SMITH, Appellant, VERSUS WALKER PATTERN & MOLD, INC.; RONALD P. VECCHIO, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas (4:00-CV-8024) December 6, 2001 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos M. Rodriguez and David L. Smith appeal the district court’s order dismissing Ro
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10271 Summary Calendar CARLOS M. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, DAVID L. SMITH, Appellant, VERSUS WALKER PATTERN & MOLD, INC.; RONALD P. VECCHIO, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas (4:00-CV-8024) December 6, 2001 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos M. Rodriguez and David L. Smith appeal the district court’s order dismissing Rod..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10271
Summary Calendar
CARLOS M. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
DAVID L. SMITH,
Appellant,
VERSUS
WALKER PATTERN & MOLD, INC.; RONALD P. VECCHIO,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(4:00-CV-8024)
December 6, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos M. Rodriguez and David L. Smith appeal the district
court’s order dismissing Rodriguez’s personal injury suit. We
affirm.
On December 20, 2000, the district court removed Smith, then
Rodriguez’s attorney of record, from the suit because Smith had
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
been disbarred from the practice of law in the Northern District of
Texas on November 21, 2000. The district court ordered Rodriguez
to notify the court no later than January 19, 2001, of his
intention to proceed pro se or to obtain new counsel. On January
23, 2001, the district court, having received no notice from
Rodriguez,1 dismissed the suit for lack of prosecution.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Rodriguez’s suit without prejudice for want of prosecution. Berry
v. Cigna/RSI-Cigna,
975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992).
Appellants’ remaining arguments, that the district court erred in
temporarily staying the suit and in removing Smith as counsel of
record after disbarment – are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
1
Smith included in the record excerpts a photocopy of an
“Affidavit of Carlos M. Rodriguez” stating that Rodriguez is unable
to hire new counsel or to proceed pro se. A hand-written notation
on the face of the affidavit states, “Filed January 26, 2001.” The
affidavit, which was not filed in the district court, is not part
of the record on appeal.