Filed: Apr. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-51176 Conference Calendar ANTONIO F. VERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CRAWFORD C. MARTIN; GEORGE J. BETO, DR.; A. G. TURNER, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-380-JN - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Antonio Vera appeals from the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for r
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-51176 Conference Calendar ANTONIO F. VERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CRAWFORD C. MARTIN; GEORGE J. BETO, DR.; A. G. TURNER, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-380-JN - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Antonio Vera appeals from the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for re..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-51176
Conference Calendar
ANTONIO F. VERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CRAWFORD C. MARTIN;
GEORGE J. BETO, DR.; A. G. TURNER,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-00-CV-380-JN
--------------------
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Antonio Vera appeals from the district court’s denial of his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.
Vera’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Rather than developing a coherent argument that addresses
the propriety of the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b)
motion, Vera’s brief simply strings together a series of
unsupported and nonsensical accusations.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-51176
-2-
Vera’s appeal is without merit and therefore frivolous. See
Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
We caution Vera that any additional frivolous appeals filed by
him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To
avoid sanctions, Vera is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.