Filed: Oct. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-50166 Summary Calendar JOSE OSCAR CHAVEZ-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Jose Antonio Chavez, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARTI LAURENZ; AL A. PHILIPPUS, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-00-CV-629 - - - - - - - - - - October 24, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-50166 Summary Calendar JOSE OSCAR CHAVEZ-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Jose Antonio Chavez, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARTI LAURENZ; AL A. PHILIPPUS, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-00-CV-629 - - - - - - - - - - October 24, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose O..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50166
Summary Calendar
JOSE OSCAR CHAVEZ-DOMINGUEZ, also known as Jose Antonio
Chavez,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARTI LAURENZ; AL A. PHILIPPUS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-00-CV-629
- - - - - - - - - -
October 24, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Oscar Chavez-Dominguez (Chavez) appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
prosecute. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Although Chavez did not
file any pleading entitled “notice of appeal,” he did file within
the appeal period a pleading which evinced an intent to appeal
and which identified Chavez as the party appealing as well as the
judgment he sought to appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1)(A)&(B);
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50166
-2-
Mosley v. Cozby,
813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Because the
pleading did not identify the court to which the appeal was being
taken, this court’s jurisdiction over this appeal is uncertain.
See FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1)(C); cf., Smith v. Barry,
502 U.S. 244,
248 (1992); McLemore v. Landry,
898 F.2d 996, 999 (5th Cir.
1990). A determination on this point is unnecessary, however, as
the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute was not
an abuse of discretion. See McNeal v. Papasan,
842 F.2d 787,
789-90 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Alvarez,
210 F.3d 309,
310 (5th Cir. 2000). Chavez has been deported to El Salvador
and, despite an order from the district court, failed to appear
for the docket call and failed to offer any explanation of how he
intends to pursue this action from another country. This appeal
is therefore frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.