Stringer v. Herbert , 71 F. App'x 341 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    August 7, 2003
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-60897
    Summary Calendar
    CHARLES L. STRINGER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    WAYNE HERBERT,
    Defendant-
    Appellee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 01-CV-513
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Charles L. Stringer’s 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint against appellee Wayne Herbert, a judge,
    was dismissed with prejudice by the district court. The district court’s dismissal was based on its
    entry of summary judgment against Stringer and in favor of Herbert. On appeal, Stringer challenges
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    only the district court’s denial of his own summary judgment motion, the grant of Herbert’s summary
    judgment motion, and an order entered declaring one of Stringer’s evidentiary motions moot.
    The district court granted Herbert’s summary judgment motion, and denied Stringer’s
    summary judgment motion as moot, on the basis that Herbert was entitled to absolute judicial
    immunity from the claims brought in Stringer’s complaint. After a de novo review of the record, we
    conclude that the summary judgment evidence supports the district court’s actions and that Stringer
    has not shown on appeal that summary judgment was not properly entered against him. See FED. R.
    CIV. P. 56(c); Guillory v. Domtar Indus., Inc., 
    95 F.3d 1320
    , 1326 (5th Cir. 1996); Little v. Liquid
    Air Corp., 
    37 F.3d 1069
    , 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Brinkmann v. Johnston, 
    793 F.2d 111
    , 112
    (5th Cir. 1986).
    The district court’s denial as moot of Stringer’s motion for de novo review of the magistrate
    judge’s evidentiary ruling was filed on the same day that the district court issued its opinion and order
    disposing of Stringer’s complaint on summary judgment. We thus conclude that the district court’s
    dismissal of Stringer’s motion as moot was not an abuse of discretion. See HC Gun & Knife Shows,
    Inc. v. City of Houston, 
    201 F.3d 544
    , 549 (5th Cir. 2000).
    AFFIRMED.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-60897

Citation Numbers: 71 F. App'x 341

Judges: Dennis, Jones, Per Curiam, Stewart

Filed Date: 8/7/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024