Filed: Aug. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-30003 Summary Calendar _ DR. MICHAEL FOX et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 92-CV-1123 - - - - - - - - - - July 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss their appeal under Fed. R. App
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-30003 Summary Calendar _ DR. MICHAEL FOX et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 92-CV-1123 - - - - - - - - - - July 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss their appeal under Fed. R. App...
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-30003
Summary Calendar
__________________
DR. MICHAEL FOX et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 92-CV-1123
- - - - - - - - - -
July 26, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss their appeal
under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). IT IS ORDERED that the motion is
GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The Government's plea of
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is rejected. See Frantz v.
United States,
29 F.3d 222, 224 (5th Cir. 1994)("This court has
not required plaintiffs to specifically enumerate legal theories
of recovery in their administrative claims.").
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No.
-2-