Filed: Mar. 16, 2010
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 11, 2010 No. 09-10389 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JOHN WILEY PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CV-476 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant Eddie Bernice Johnson seeks a writ of mandamus vaca
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 11, 2010 No. 09-10389 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JOHN WILEY PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CV-476 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant Eddie Bernice Johnson seeks a writ of mandamus vacat..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 11, 2010
No. 09-10389 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
JOHN WILEY PRICE,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CV-476
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Eddie Bernice Johnson seeks a writ of mandamus vacating the
district court’s remand order and directing the court to consider and resolve her
motion to dismiss. For the reasons given in our decision dismissing for lack of
jurisdiction Johnson’s direct appeal from the remand order, we are also without
jurisdiction to consider the remand by a petition for writ of mandamus. See In
re Weaver,
610 F.2d 335, 337 (5th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that
the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.