Filed: Apr. 10, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30781 Conference Calendar ERNEST GLENN JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RICHARD L. FEWELL; HARRIS, MR.; JAMES TURNER; JAMES CARTER; MELISSA BRANDON; STEELMAN, MRS.; ROGER ROBERT, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-2182 - April 10, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ernest Glenn Johnson (Louisiana prisoner #
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30781 Conference Calendar ERNEST GLENN JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RICHARD L. FEWELL; HARRIS, MR.; JAMES TURNER; JAMES CARTER; MELISSA BRANDON; STEELMAN, MRS.; ROGER ROBERT, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-2182 - April 10, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ernest Glenn Johnson (Louisiana prisoner # 1..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30781
Conference Calendar
ERNEST GLENN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD L. FEWELL; HARRIS, MR.; JAMES TURNER; JAMES CARTER;
MELISSA BRANDON; STEELMAN, MRS.; ROGER ROBERT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-2182
--------------------
April 10, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ernest Glenn Johnson (Louisiana prisoner # 10119) appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
after an evidentiary hearing by the magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Johnson does not challenge the legal
basis for the dismissal of his complaint, but rather he merely
recounts the factual basis for his complaint and disputes the
testimony given by the defendants’ witnesses.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30781
-2-
The dismissal of Johnson’s complaint amounted to a dismissal
of the action following a bench trial. See McAfee v. Martin,
63
F.3d 436, 437 (5th Cir. 1995). This court ordinarily reviews the
factual findings made during a bench trial for clear error. See
Odom v. Frank,
3 F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 1993). However, because
Johnson failed to provide this court with a transcript of the
evidentiary hearing, this court will not consider his claims, and
the appeal is DISMISSED.** See Powell v. Estelle,
959 F.2d 22,
26 (5th Cir. 1992); Richardson v. Henry,
902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th
Cir. 1990); 5TH CIR. R. 42.3.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
**
Even if this court were to consider Johnson’s claims,
Johnson provides nothing more than his own self-serving assertion
that the testimony adduced at the hearing was false. He thus has
not demonstrated clear error in the district court’s factual
findings. See Odom, F.3d at 843.