Cooper v. Baucum ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    April 11, 2008
    No. 07-10306
    Summary Calendar             Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    PASTOR NELL COOPER, also known Erma Cooper, also known as Irma Nell
    Cooper
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    DON MICHAEL BAUCUM; A & M INVESTMENT; A & M HERITAGE
    HOLDINGS, INC LTD LLC; LEE NICK MCFADIN, JR; ELIZABETH
    PATTMORE, Manager; JANNA WARD CLARKE; D M LYNN; VINCENT G
    SPRINKLE
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:07-CV-95
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Pastor Nell Cooper has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis (IFP) in this court. Cooper’s request for leave to proceed IFP in the
    district court was denied by the magistrate judge; when she failed to comply
    *
    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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-10306
    with an order to pay the requisite filing fee, the district court dismissed her
    complaint for failure to prosecute.
    If necessary, this court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua
    sponte. Mosley v. Cozby, 
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Following the
    magistrate’s denial of leave to proceed IFP in the district court, Cooper filed a
    pleading entitled “Appeal as of Right,” which the district court clerk construed
    as a notice of an interlocutory appeal. However, the district court correctly
    construed this pleading as objections to the magistrate’s order rather than a
    notice of appeal. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); Donaldson v. Ducote, 
    373 F.3d 622
    ,
    624 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Cooper has not filed any subsequent pleading that
    could be construed as a timely notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to
    consider her appeal. See Bowles v. Russell, 
    127 S. Ct. 2360
    , 2366 (2007).
    APPEAL DISMISSED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-10306

Judges: Jolly, Dennis, Prado

Filed Date: 4/11/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024