Filed: Dec. 16, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20973 Conference Calendar ANTHONY R. LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CHARLES BACARISSE, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-504 - - - - - - - - - - December 16, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Anthony R. Lucas, Texas prisoner # 665065, appeals from the district court’s order granting
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20973 Conference Calendar ANTHONY R. LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CHARLES BACARISSE, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-504 - - - - - - - - - - December 16, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Anthony R. Lucas, Texas prisoner # 665065, appeals from the district court’s order granting ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20973
Conference Calendar
ANTHONY R. LUCAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES BACARISSE,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-96-CV-504
- - - - - - - - - -
December 16, 1999
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony R. Lucas, Texas prisoner # 665065, appeals from the
district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the
defendant, Charles Bacarisse, in Lucas’s civil rights complaint
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lucas argues that
Bacarisse, the Harris County, Texas, District Clerk, interfered
with his constitutional right of access to the court.
After close examination of the record, and consideration of
the parties’ arguments, we find no error in the district court’s
ruling granting summary judgment. Nor do we find any merit in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-20973
-2-
Lucas’s claim that the district court erred by failing to grant
his request for a stay in the proceedings to allow for further
discovery. See Exxon Corp. v. Crosby-Mississippi Resources, Ltd,
40 F.3d 1474, 1487 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district
court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.