DuVall v. Atty Gen Off Texas, et al

Filing 920090429

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
April 28, 2009 No. 08-51000 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

DAVID DONALD DUVALL Plaintiff-Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF TEXAS; TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; RONALD EARLE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, individual capacity; TRAVIS COUNTY; JOHN DOE, AGENT - Transact U.S. MAIL matters, individual capacity; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; STEVEN HERNANDEZ, postmaster, JOHN DOE, manager, Northcross Station Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (07-CV-1017)

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Donald DuVall appeals the dismissal of his claims and the imposition of sanctions by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. DuVall's claims emerge from his efforts to bring about the
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-51000 prosecution of his adversaries from a separate civil case that has been dismissed.1 In the instant case, the claims are that various government entities and individuals stymied DuVall by refusing to accept mail from him or to pursue criminal charges. We review dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) de novo. However, DuVall provides no meaningful arguments based in fact or in law for any of his alleged points of error, nor has he filed a reply brief in response to the briefs of his opponents. Our review of the judgment of the district court reveals no error. DuVall's factual offerings are deficient to state a claim as to any of the defendants-appellants, many of whom rightfully claim further immunities that would stand in the way of DuVall's suit. Finally, DuVall offers no ground in fact or in law for overturning the imposition of sanctions, and therefore these too must stand. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

See DuVall v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., No. 07-cv-690 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2007), aff'd No. 07-51405 (5th Cir., May 16, 2008).

1

2