Filed: Jul. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30318 Summary Calendar EDDIE LEE MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BRUCE N. LYNN; JOHN P. WHITLEY; RICHARD PEABODY, Colonel; DORA RABALAIS; DARREL VANNOY; (UNKNOWN) CALVERT, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 90-CV-500 - - - - - - - - - - July 18, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eddie
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30318 Summary Calendar EDDIE LEE MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BRUCE N. LYNN; JOHN P. WHITLEY; RICHARD PEABODY, Colonel; DORA RABALAIS; DARREL VANNOY; (UNKNOWN) CALVERT, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 90-CV-500 - - - - - - - - - - July 18, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eddie L..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30318
Summary Calendar
EDDIE LEE MARSHALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRUCE N. LYNN; JOHN P. WHITLEY; RICHARD
PEABODY, Colonel; DORA RABALAIS; DARREL
VANNOY; (UNKNOWN) CALVERT,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 90-CV-500
- - - - - - - - - -
July 18, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eddie Lee Marshall, # 87459, appeals the district court’s
dismissal on summary judgment grounds of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights action. Section 1983 requires a violation of a
constitutional or a statutory right. Green v. McKaskle,
788 F.2d
1116, 1123 (5th Cir. 1986). Marshall has not demonstrated a
deprivation of a protectible liberty interest. Giovanni v. Lynn,
48 F.3d 908, 912 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
116 S. Ct. 167
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
(1995);Luken v. Scott,
71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting
Sandin v. Conner,
115 S. Ct. 2293, 2295 (1995)), cert. denied,
116 S. Ct. 1690 (1996).
Marshall’s appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983) (frivolous appeal is without
arguable merit in law and fact). Because the appeal is
frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We previously warned Marshall in Marshall v. Stalder, No.
93-3842 (5th Cir. May 17, 1994), that further frivolous appeals
would invite the imposition of sanctions. Accordingly, Marshall
is barred from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis, civil appeal
in this court, or any pro se, in forma pauperis, initial civil
pleading in any court which is subject to this court's
jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge
of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks of all
federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to
Marshall, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with
this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.