Filed: Aug. 06, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit August 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 07-20031 Summary Calendar CARL B. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant VERSUS COMPASS BANK, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston 4:06-CV-2845 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm t
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit August 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 07-20031 Summary Calendar CARL B. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant VERSUS COMPASS BANK, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston 4:06-CV-2845 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm th..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit August 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 07-20031 Summary Calendar CARL B. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant VERSUS COMPASS BANK, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston 4:06-CV-2845 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the district court judgment. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing appellant’s motion to recuse. A judicial ruling in an earlier case is not grounds for recusal. * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The district court properly concluded that plaintiff failed to set forth the essential elements of any claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court, therefore, correctly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. AFFIRMED. 2
