Filed: Mar. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-40778 (Summary Calendar) NORRIS HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBERT L. HORN, Sheriff; JAMES A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; LESLE WOODS; CIRO E. DE LA VEGA; JOHN MCAULIFFE; WILLIAM LAZENBY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. CA-C-94-181) April 30, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-40778 (Summary Calendar) NORRIS HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBERT L. HORN, Sheriff; JAMES A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; LESLE WOODS; CIRO E. DE LA VEGA; JOHN MCAULIFFE; WILLIAM LAZENBY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. CA-C-94-181) April 30, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-40778
(Summary Calendar)
NORRIS HICKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT L. HORN, Sheriff;
JAMES A. COLLINS, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division; LESLE WOODS;
CIRO E. DE LA VEGA; JOHN MCAULIFFE;
WILLIAM LAZENBY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(USDC No. CA-C-94-181)
April 30, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from the district court’s order dismissing appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion
in dismissing his § 1983 action as frivolous. We have reviewed the argument and the record and find
no abuse of discretion in the dismissal. See Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1992).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.