Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20876 Conference Calendar WOODROW RAYMOND NOVAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEORGE C. WEBSTER, FRANKIE L. REESCAN, JACK E. ROWLEY, CARL E. McKELLAR, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-93-CV-1735 - - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The appellate brief submitted
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20876 Conference Calendar WOODROW RAYMOND NOVAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEORGE C. WEBSTER, FRANKIE L. REESCAN, JACK E. ROWLEY, CARL E. McKELLAR, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-93-CV-1735 - - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The appellate brief submitted ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-20876
Conference Calendar
WOODROW RAYMOND NOVAK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGE C. WEBSTER, FRANKIE
L. REESCAN, JACK E. ROWLEY,
CARL E. McKELLAR,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-93-CV-1735
- - - - - - - - - -
June 27, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The appellate brief submitted by Woodrow Novak, #586839,
does not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) because it does not
contain citation to authority or to the record. Novak does not
formulate any argument that may be liberally construed and makes
no effort to identify any purported error that the district court
committed. See Grant v. Cuellar,
59 F.3d 523, 524-25 (5th Cir.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 95-20876
- 2 -
1995). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for want of
prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 43.3.2.
DISMISSED.