Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wanda Lee v. Bureau of Prisons, 11-10371 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 11-10371 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 28, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: Case: 11-10371 Document: 00511554217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 28, 2011 No. 11-10371 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk WANDA LAFAYE LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant v. CAPTAIN KELLY; P.A. SUPRIS,; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dist. Ct. No. 4:10-CV-00033-Y Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, a
More
Case: 11-10371 Document: 00511554217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 28, 2011 No. 11-10371 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk WANDA LAFAYE LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant v. CAPTAIN KELLY; P.A. SUPRIS,; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dist. Ct. No. 4:10-CV-00033-Y Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Wanda Lee appeals the district court’s denial of her request for appointment of counsel. We AFFIRM. Lee sued various prison officials contending that their treatment and housing of her led to her infection with MRSA. She requested appointment of counsel; the district court denied the request and her motion for reconsideration. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 11-10371 Document: 00511554217 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2011 No. 11-10371 Appellees moved to dismiss this appeal as frivolous after Lee filed her brief on the merits; Lee filed a response to the motion. We determine that it is unnecessary to decide the motion because Lee’s brief does not demonstrate that the district court’s conclusion that she was not entitled to counsel is in error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order and DENY AS MOOT the Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss and for Extension of Time to file Appellee’s Brief. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer