Ratcliff v. Polk County Title

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 18, 2002
Docket01-40738
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ratcliff v. Polk County Title (Ratcliff v. Polk County Title) 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
Ratcliff v. Polk County Title, (5th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40738 Summary Calendar

ELIJAH W. RATCLIFF, Individually and Elijah W. Ratcliff, Executor,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

POLK COUNTY TITLE; RONALD P. BOYCE, Examiner; E. L. MCCLENDON, JR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:01-CV-64 - - - - - - - - - - February 15, 2002 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elijah W. Ratcliff appeals the district court’s dismissal of

his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ratcliff

argues in a rambling and conclusional fashion that he has

established causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983,

1985, and 1988. Ratcliff alleges that the appellants defamed

Katie Ratcliff by publishing a title report indicating that she

died intestate. He contends that she did not die intestate and

that this representation caused him injury, including the

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-40738 -2-

deprivation of his civil rights. Ratcliff admits that the

probate action is still pending.

Ratcliff has not stated a cause of action for defamation.

See Keys v. Interstate Circuit, Inc., 468 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Tex.

Civ. App. 1971); TEX. PROB. CODE ANN. §§ 89, 94. Nor has he

established that his complaint rests on a cognizable

constitutional violation. Because this appeal is without

arguable merit, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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

Related

Howard v. King
707 F.2d 215 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
Duke v. City of Texarkana
468 S.W.2d 483 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ratcliff v. Polk County Title, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratcliff-v-polk-county-title-ca5-2002.