James Leggett v. Brent Newton, et al

Filing 511104016

Case: 09-20432

Document: 00511104016

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/07/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-20432 S u m m a r y Calendar May 7, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

J A M E S T. LEGGETT, P l a in t i f f - A p p e l l a n t v. B R E N T NEWTON; SETH SILVERMAN, D e fe n d a n ts -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:09-CV-341

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J a m e s T. Leggett appeals the district court's denial of his Federal Rule of C iv il Procedure Rule 60(b) motion, which challenged the dismissal, as frivolous, o f his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The district court noted that L e g g e t t's motion did not state any grounds that would entitle him to relief under R u le 60(b). W e do not have jurisdiction to review the correctness of the district court's d i s m is s a l of the underlying § 1983 civil rights complaint, and Leggett is limited
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-20432

Document: 00511104016 Page: 2 No. 09-20432

Date Filed: 05/07/2010

o n appeal to a challenge of the district court's decision to deny his Rule 60(b) m o tio n . See Barrs v. Sullivan, 906 F.2d 120, 121 (5th Cir. 1990). Leggett, h o w e v e r , does not address the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and o n ly presents arguments in support of his underlying §1983 civil rights c o m p la in t. Thus, Leggett has abandoned his only cognizable claim on appeal. S e e Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th C ir . 1987) (holding that an appellant's failure to identify any error in the district c o u r t 's analysis is the same as if he had not appealed the judgment). To the e x te n t that Leggett raises new claims, we need not address those because this c o u r t does not generally consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. S e e Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Disc. Ctrs., Inc., 200 F.3d 3 0 7 , 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000). L e g g e tt is cautioned that the district court's dismissal of his complaint as fr iv o lo u s and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike for p u r p o s e s of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5 t h Cir. 1996). Leggett is further cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes p u r s u a n t to § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed w h ile he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent d a n g e r of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). A P P E A L DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2