Filed: Mar. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 4, 2009 No. 08-30938 Charles R. Fulbruge III Summary Calendar Clerk YOO I. LEE Plaintiff-Appellant v. STEVE STAMATKIN, ET AL; Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:08-CV-3864 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Yoo I. Lee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 4, 2009 No. 08-30938 Charles R. Fulbruge III Summary Calendar Clerk YOO I. LEE Plaintiff-Appellant v. STEVE STAMATKIN, ET AL; Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:08-CV-3864 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Yoo I. Lee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 4, 2009 No. 08-30938 Charles R. Fulbruge III Summary Calendar Clerk YOO I. LEE Plaintiff-Appellant v. STEVE STAMATKIN, ET AL; Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:08-CV-3864 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Yoo I. Lee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the judgments of the district court dismissing his claims with prejudice and denying his motions for waiver of jurisdiction, to vacate judgment, and for a due process hearing. (His brief advances other claims and arguments, but these appear to be the only appealable orders from the district court.) His underlying claims * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-30938 have to do with a car accident in 2002. We construe pro se briefs liberally, but even so, neither here nor before the district court has he stated a successful claim under federal law, and therefore we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 2
