Filed: Nov. 27, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-30397 Summary Calendar _ FRED R. VINET, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus R. LAURIANO, Officer; K WOLKART; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES; HARRY LEE, Sheriff; JEFFERSON PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 92-CA-0546 - - - - - - - - - - November 16, 1995 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appel
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-30397 Summary Calendar _ FRED R. VINET, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus R. LAURIANO, Officer; K WOLKART; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES; HARRY LEE, Sheriff; JEFFERSON PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 92-CA-0546 - - - - - - - - - - November 16, 1995 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appell..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 95-30397 Summary Calendar __________________ FRED R. VINET, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus R. LAURIANO, Officer; K WOLKART; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES; HARRY LEE, Sheriff; JEFFERSON PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 92-CA-0546 - - - - - - - - - - November 16, 1995 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate its dismissal. He argues that he timely filed his postjudgment motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. * Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. No. 95-30397 -2- Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Vinet v. Lauriano, No. 92-CA-0546 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 1995). AFFIRMED.
