Filed: Nov. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-50345 Conference Calendar DALE ST. JOHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WAYNE SCOTT ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CV-31 - - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dale St. John, #653767, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit pursuant t
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-50345 Conference Calendar DALE ST. JOHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WAYNE SCOTT ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CV-31 - - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dale St. John, #653767, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit pursuant to..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50345
Conference Calendar
DALE ST. JOHN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-96-CV-31
- - - - - - - - - -
October 23, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dale St. John, #653767, appeals the dismissal of his civil
rights suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). He contends that
the defendants violated his constitutional rights by transferring
him to Lockhart Work Facility. We have reviewed the record and
brief and conclude that St. John has identified no error in the
dismissal. See St. John v. Scott, No. A-96-CA-031 JN (W.D. Tex.
Apr. 10, 1996).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50345
- 2 -
St. John’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v.
King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We caution St. John that any additional frivolous appeals filed
by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, St. John is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.