Filed: Jul. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30010 Summary Calendar PERRY JACKSON ET AL., Plaintiffs, PERRY JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.; WARDEN BARONI; CORPORAL JOSEPH; PAUL LANDRY; DEPUTY KENDRICK, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-792-T June 29, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Perry Jackson, Louisiana prisoner #
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30010 Summary Calendar PERRY JACKSON ET AL., Plaintiffs, PERRY JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.; WARDEN BARONI; CORPORAL JOSEPH; PAUL LANDRY; DEPUTY KENDRICK, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-792-T June 29, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Perry Jackson, Louisiana prisoner # 1..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30010
Summary Calendar
PERRY JACKSON ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
PERRY JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.; WARDEN BARONI;
CORPORAL JOSEPH; PAUL LANDRY; DEPUTY KENDRICK,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-792-T
June 29, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Perry Jackson, Louisiana prisoner # 106488, appeals the
district court's dismissal of his claim that defendants had
established an inadequate inmate administrative remedy procedure
and did not respond appropriately to his complaint that the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Louisiana Department of Corrections had miscalculated his sentence.
The court found Jackson's claim to be frivolous and dismissed it
with prejudice.1
Upon review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we
discern no reversible error in the district court's judgment of
dismissal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for essentially the same reasons
articulated by the district court.2
AFFIRMED.
1
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2001); 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c)(1) (2001).
2
See Jackson v. Foti, No. 00-CV-792-T (E.D. La. Dec. 13,
2000).
2