Filed: Apr. 01, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 31, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-51232 Summary Calendar R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MATTHEW TEPPER, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (02-CV-656) Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* R. Wayne Johnson, Texas prisoner # 282756, appeals the district cou
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 31, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-51232 Summary Calendar R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MATTHEW TEPPER, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (02-CV-656) Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* R. Wayne Johnson, Texas prisoner # 282756, appeals the district cour..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 31, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-51232
Summary Calendar
R. WAYNE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MATTHEW TEPPER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(02-CV-656)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
R. Wayne Johnson, Texas prisoner # 282756, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous. In his complaint, Johnson alleged that the defendant
violated his constitutional rights by using his full first name
when addressing correspondence to him.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
On appeal Johnson argues that the district court erred in
dismissing his complaint as frivolous because he has a First
Amendment right to be identified as “R. Wayne Johnson.” Johnson
has not shown that the district court abused its discretion when it
dismissed his complaint as frivolous.1
Johnson’s appeal is without merit and is frivolous.2
Accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.3
Johnson is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal of
his complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal count as two
strikes against him for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).4 Johnson
is further cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he may
not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal while
he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury.5
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
1
See Black v. Warren,
134 F.3d 732, 733 (5th Cir. 1998).
2
See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
3
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
4
See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).
5
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2