Filed: Oct. 25, 2004
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 October 25, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-60282 Summary Calendar FREELANCE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; J. B. HUNT; PAMELA RUSHING, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus HARRY SANDERS; J. L. WILLIAMS, TOMMY SOUTHERLAND; JOE BROOKS; LEROY BROOKS, In their Official Capacities as members of the Board of Supervisors of Lowndes County, Mississippi, C. B. “BUTCH HOWARD, In his Of
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 25, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-60282 Summary Calendar FREELANCE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; J. B. HUNT; PAMELA RUSHING, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus HARRY SANDERS; J. L. WILLIAMS, TOMMY SOUTHERLAND; JOE BROOKS; LEROY BROOKS, In their Official Capacities as members of the Board of Supervisors of Lowndes County, Mississippi, C. B. “BUTCH HOWARD, In his Off..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
October 25, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60282
Summary Calendar
FREELANCE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC;
J. B. HUNT; PAMELA RUSHING, Individually,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
HARRY SANDERS; J. L. WILLIAMS,
TOMMY SOUTHERLAND; JOE BROOKS;
LEROY BROOKS, In their Official Capacities
as members of the Board of Supervisors of
Lowndes County, Mississippi, C. B. “BUTCH
HOWARD, In his Official Capacity as Sheriff
of Lowndes County, Mississippi,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Mississippi
(USDC No. 3:02-CV-109-M-B)
_______________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
The district court correctly determined that the motion for attorney’s fees was
untimely. See Romaguera v. Gegenheim,
162 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus, the
judgment is AFFIRMED.
2