Filed: Sep. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-20241 Summary Calendar DAVID LERONE KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JERRY L. STRAIN, Sergeant; ROBERT L. OTT; MICHAEL W. COUNTZ; KENT RAMSEY; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-94-CV-3155 - September 17, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER C
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-20241 Summary Calendar DAVID LERONE KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JERRY L. STRAIN, Sergeant; ROBERT L. OTT; MICHAEL W. COUNTZ; KENT RAMSEY; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-94-CV-3155 - September 17, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CU..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-20241
Summary Calendar
DAVID LERONE KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JERRY L. STRAIN, Sergeant;
ROBERT L. OTT; MICHAEL W. COUNTZ;
KENT RAMSEY; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-94-CV-3155
--------------------
September 17, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Lerone King, Texas state prisoner #592507A, appeals
from a judgment for defendant Strain following a jury trial on
King’s civil rights complaint. King argues that the district
court erred by denying his requests for the appointment of
counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying King’s requests for counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-20241
-2-
691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.