Lawson v. Blankenship ( 1995 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60219
Summary Calendar
__________________
JAMES BERNARD LAWSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JERRY BLANKENSHIP, Detective,
Clinton Police Department,
Clinton, Mississippi; WILLIAM J. JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC Nos. 3:93-CV-654 & 3:93-CV-314
- - - - - - - - - -
November 3, 1995
Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is the appeal of the grant of summary judgment for
Jerry Blankenship and Judge William J. Johnson in the appellant's
civil rights action against them. The appellant contends that
the magistrate judge erred by granting summary judgement without
giving him adequate notice; holding Johnson absolutely immune
from suit; holding Blankenship qualifiedly immune; failing to
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
address his conspiracy contentions; granting summary judgment
before the defendants responded to his interrogatories; and
improperly inducing him to waive his right to a jury trial. He
also contends that the magistrate judge was biased against him.
The appeal is frivolous. First, we have reviewed the record
and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error
regarding the immunity of Blankenship and Johnson. Second,
Johnson and Blankenship gave the appellant adequate notice of
their summary judgment motion when they served the motion on him.
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see Emplanar, Inc. v. Marsh, 11 F.3d 1284,
1293 n.11 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 312 (1994).
Third, the magistrate judge's failure to address conspiracy
contentions was harmless error. The appellant has failed to
brief adequately any underlying substantive constitutional
violations for appeal, see Pfannsteil v. City of Marion, 918 F.2d
1178, 1187 (5th Cir. 1990), and thus could not prevail on appeal
on his conspiracy contentions even had the magistrate judge
considered them. Fourth, Blankenship and Johnson responded to
the interrogatories. The contention regarding those
interrogatories therefore lacks a factual basis. Fifth, because
the magistrate judge granted summary judgment, the contention
regarding waiver of his right to trial is moot. Rocky v. King,
900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1990). Sixth, the appellant has not
demonstrated that the magistrate judge was biased against him.
Finally, Lawson previously has been warned by this court
that he may be sanctioned for filing further frivolous pleadings.
2
Accordingly, he is barred from filing any pro se, in forma
pauperis, civil appeal in this court, or any pro se, in forma
pauperis, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to
this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission
of a judge of the forum court or of this court; the clerk of this
court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this
Circuit are directed to return to Lawson, unfiled, any attempted
submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
3