Johnson v. Texas Department of Public Safety

Fifth Circuit

Johnson v. Texas Department of Public Safety

95 F. App'x 79

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 2004

Docket03-20104

StatusUnpublished

This text of 95 F. App'x 79 (Johnson v. Texas Department of Public Safety) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 95 F. App'x 79 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Arthur E. Johnson filed the instant appeal following the district court’s entry of its June 20, 2002, order dismissing his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; its July 9, 2002, order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion; its July 30, 2002, order denying his motion to set aside the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion; and its November 29, 2002, order denying his motion in opposition to the July 30, 2002, order and imposing sanctions against him for filing frivolous motions.

Johnson’s notice of appeal is timely only as to the district court’s November 29, 2002, order denying his motion in opposition to the July 30, 2002, order and imposing sanctions against him. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Nelson v. Foti, 707 F.2d 170, 171 (5th Cir.1983) (holding that a timely notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction). Johnson does not allege any error in the district court’s November 29, 2002, order. He has therefore waived the only issue this court has jurisdiction to review on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cíe. R. 42.2. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Arthur E. Johnson filed the instant appeal following the district court’s entry of its June 20, 2002, order dismissing his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; its July 9, 2002, order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion; its July 30, 2002, order denying his motion to set aside the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion; and its November 29, 2002, order denying his motion in opposition to the July 30, 2002, order and imposing sanctions against him for filing frivolous motions.

Johnson’s notice of appeal is timely only as to the district court’s November 29, 2002, order denying his motion in opposition to the July 30, 2002, order and imposing sanctions against him. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Nelson v. Foti, 707 F.2d 170, 171 (5th Cir.1983) (holding that a timely notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction). Johnson does not allege any error in the district court’s November 29, 2002, order. He has therefore waived the only issue this court has jurisdiction to review on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cíe. R. 42.2. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F. App'x 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-texas-department-of-public-safety-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack