George La Blanche, III v. Prairie View A&M Univers , 420 F. App'x 362 ( 2011 )

Case: 10-20602 Document: 00511425996 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 28, 2011
No. 10-20602
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
GEORGE D. LA BLANCHE, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
PRAIRIE VIEW A & M UNIVERSITY; KPVU RADIO; CHERYL GRANGER
BROOKS; JEFFREY KELLEY; FRED WASHINGTON, Vice President Auxiliary
Services; ALBERT GEE, Assistant Vice President Human Resources; RADHIKA
AYYAR, Director Employee Services,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CV-2978
Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George D. La Blanche, III, moves this court for authorization to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Insofar as La Blanche wishes to appeal the
order dismissing his suit, we lack jurisdiction to consider the correctness of this
judgment due to his failure to timely notice an appeal from it. See Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). However, he did timely notice his appeal from
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 10-20602 Document: 00511425996 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2011
No. 10-20602
the magistrate judge’s denial of his postjudgment motion, which is best classed
as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Harcon Barge Co. v.
D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc). We thus
consider whether La Blanche has shown that he should be permitted to proceed
IFP in this appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The appellee has
filed a motion for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing deadlines.
La Blanche asserts that he is impoverished and that the magistrate judge
was biased. Additionally, he avers that the magistrate judge had jurisdiction
over his suit, that he did not raise a Title VII claim, and that he raises a valid
retaliation claim. These allegations are insufficient to show that La Blanche will
raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th
Cir. 1982). Consequently, all outstanding motions are DENIED, and this appeal
is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
2