In Re: Vioxx Prod Liability

Filing

In Re: Vioxx Prod Liability

Doc. 0

Case: 09-30445

Document: 00511222421

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/01/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-30445 S u m m a r y Calendar September 1, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

I N RE: VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

S E R G I CHEPILKO, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t , versu s M E R C K AND COMPANY, INC., D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lle e .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:05-MD-1657 U S D C No. 2:08-CV-959

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-30445

Document: 00511222421

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/01/2010

No. 09-30445 B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

A p p e a r in g pro se, the plaintiff-appellant, Sergi Chepilko, has filed a threep a g e brief. It is difficult to tell what legal claims he makes on appeal. The only is s u e stated is "[w]hether District Court correctly dismissed with prejudice all c la im s of plaintiff for failure to comply with Pre-Trial Order 28." Chepilko asserts that he "did not receive from the District Court numerous P r e -T r ia l Orders, including PTO-28 . . . ." He states that "[i]stead, Vioxx claims A d m in is tr a t o r offered plaintiff to enroll in the Settlement Program," which he d id . He declined to sign the stipulation of dismissal because, as he posits, he h a d real concerns that such demand without consideration of the s e t t le m e n t offer could be fraudulent and addressed this issue to the c o u r t . Nobody explained [to] plaintiff why such stipulation of dism is s a l requires upfront unconditional signing. C h e p ilk o asserts that being required to sign the stipulation of dismissal, p u r s u a n t to the settlement, is "illegal." That claim is without merit. Because h e has shown no reversible error, the judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

2