United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 22, 2004 In the Charles R. Fulbruge III United States Court of Appeals Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _______________ No. 02-60852 Summary Calendar _______________ LEE SAMUEL DONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; MALCOLM C. COTTING; W.E. WALKER; MICHAEL L. CLOMPTON; RALEIGH L. CHARPENTIER; ROBERT A. HAMMOCK; T.A. BOWEN, Defendants-Appellees. ***************  _______________ No. 03-60624 Summary Calendar _______________ LEE SAMUEL DONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; ET AL., Defendants, BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; MALCOLM C. COTTING; W.E. WALKER; MICHAEL L. CLOMPTON; RALEIGH L. CHARPENTIER; ROBERT A. HAMMOCK; T.A. BOWEN, Defendants-Appellees. *************** 2  _______________ No. 03-60626 Summary Calendar _______________ LEE SAMUEL DONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; ET AL., Defendants, BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; MALCOLM C. COTTING; W.E. WALKER; MICHAEL L. CLOMPTON; RALEIGH L. CHARPENTIER; ROBERT A. HAMMOCK; T.A. BOWEN, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi m 3:00-CV-202-WS m 3:00-CV-203-WS _________________________ Before SMITH, DEMOSS and Proceeding pro se, Lee Donnell pursues STEWART, Circuit Judges. three appeals that we consolidate for purposes of a combined opinion. Donnell challenges PER CURIAM:* various adverse rulings in his long-running dis- pute with his former employer, BellSouth Communications, Inc. (“BellSouth”). Finding no merit in any of Donnell’s contentions, we * affirm in all three cases. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has deter- mined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 3  I. III. In No. 02-60852, Donnell appeals an order In No. 03-60626, Donnell appeals an order enforcing a settlement of his underlying dis- denying his motion to strike all statements at- pute. As the district court noted in its compre- tributable to him that are contained in the hensive order, however, Donnell appeared in aforementioned transcript. Because the tran- court and agreed to all the settlement terms, script is accurate, and reflects statements made which included $100,000 and full retirement in open court, the district court properly de- benefits to Donnell. nied the motion to strike. Donnell asserts that the settlement was lim- IV. ited to his retaliation and defamation claims, This litigation badly needs to come to an but the district court persuasively found other- end. Donnell has received a substantial settle- wise, and its finding is not clearly erroneous. ment, to which he agreed. He should not fur- Donnell also avers that the attorney he brought ther burden the courts and defendants with with him did not actually represent him, but meritless attacks. We also remind him that again, the district court reliably found to the sanctions are available for frivolous litigation. contrary. Finally, Donnell opposes the $5,731.79 in fees and expenses that BellSouth The orders complained of are AFFIRMED. 1 incurred to support the settlement that Donnell contested. The award was reasonable, and we will not overturn it. There is no doubt the district court had full authority to enforce the settlement. The court handled that proceeding without error. II. In No. 03-60624, Donnell challenges an order denying his “Plaintiff’s Motion To Cor- rect Transcript Because of Inadvertent Er- rors/Ommissions [sic] and Motion To Have Transcript Copy Made Available to Plaintiff To Be TranscribedSSAll at His Expense.” The transcript in question is the record of the settlement hearing mentioned above. The district court patiently denied that motion in a thorough, eight-page order. The court explained that it had carefully reviewed the transcript, which under law is deemed prima facie correct, and had determined that it is in every respect accurate. There is no 1 All pending motions are DENIED, including, error in that decision. without limitation, Donnell’s motions to remand, for appointment of counsel, and to hear the tape. 4