Filed: Apr. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-60017 Conference Calendar JAMES LEE TOLBERT, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:94CV289-D-D - - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant James Tolbert, Jr., did not file a notice of appea
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-60017 Conference Calendar JAMES LEE TOLBERT, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:94CV289-D-D - - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant James Tolbert, Jr., did not file a notice of appeal..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60017
Conference Calendar
JAMES LEE TOLBERT, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:94CV289-D-D
- - - - - - - - - -
April 19, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant James Tolbert, Jr., did not file a notice of
appeal after the district court denied his motion for
reconsideration, which was timely as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion. Therefore, this court cannot consider the motion or the
attached documents in adjudicating this appeal. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4). Based on the record then before it, the district court
did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Tolbert’s civil rights
action without prejudice, for failing to exhaust his
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
administrative remedies and for failing to comply with an order
to provide a status report within 150 days. See Pedraza v. Ryan,
18 F.3d 288 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.