Heimlich v. Harris County Texas ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20072
Conference Calendar
EDMOND B. HEIMLICH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS; ET AL.,
Defendants,
HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS; JOHNNY B. HOLMES; WERNER VOIGT; TED POE;
JOHN BOONE; BALDWIN CHIN; STUART W. BROWN; JUDY BEDDINGFIELD;
ERNEST W. GODFREY, III; DENNIS RAY KUITHE; STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-96-CV-2556
--------------------
December 11, 2002
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edmund B. Heimlich appeals the denial of a motion for relief
from final judgment filed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).
Heimlich argues that he was entitled to relief because the
defendants were not immune from liability. The denial of a Rule
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20072
-2-
60(b) motion, however, does not bring up the underlying judgment
for review and is not a substitute for appeal. In re Ta Chi
Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A., 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir.
1984). He also argues that he is entitled to relief under Rule
60(b)(5) but that rule is inapposite. Heimlich’s argument that
he was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(4) likewise fails
inasmuch as he fails to show that the judgment against him was
void. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 142 (5th
Cir. 1996).
Heimlich fails to show that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied his motion. Aucoin v. K-Mart Apparel
Fashion Corp., 943 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1991); Seven Elves, Inc.
v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Heimlich’s
motion for retroactive recusal is DENIED.