Mason v. Landis ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40949
Conference Calendar
WILLIAM MICHAEL MASON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES LANDIS; JOHN WESLEY LANNINGHAM; BLAKE BELL; JAMES
CONNERS; ED WHITEHEAD; LEON W. GUINN; UNIDENTIFIED DEAN, LVN;
DANIEL D. DICKERSON; DANETT D. FARMER; LINDA S. BILBY-KNIGHT;
MATTIE F. DEGETAIRE; LISA G. CURRY; TANYA B. FRANKS; RALPH
PHILLIPS; ROBERT A. KOMER; RONALD BUSH; R. B. BAILEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:01-CV-107
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Michael Mason, Texas prisoner #999040, appeals from
the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice for failing to
comply with the magistrate judge’s order to amend his complaint
to state claims personal to him after a complaint filed by Mason
and two other prisoners was separated into three lawsuits. Mason
contends that the district court erred by dismissing his
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40949
-2-
complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Mason alleges that
he did not receive a copy of the order to file an amended
complaint. According to Mason, he complied with all other orders
he received from the district court and would have complied with
the order to file an amended complaint had he received it. He
argues that his case did not present delay or contumacious
conduct that justified a dismissal for failure to comply. He
believes that his district-court filings should have suggested to
the district court that he was unfamiliar with the law and should
have led the district court to provide guidance to him instead of
dismissing the case. Mason also contends that the magistrate
judge’s discussion of the merits of his complaint was erroneous.
The dismissal of Mason’s complaint for failure to comply
with the order to file an amended complaint was not an abuse of
discretion. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.
1988). Mason did not comply with the magistrate judge’s order to
file an amended complaint separating his claims from those of the
other plaintiffs. Moreover, Mason could have presented his
claims in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report, or in
a motion pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) or FED. R. CIV. P.
60(b), and did not.
AFFIRMED.