Lawrence Haberman v. USA
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-10621 Affirmed] Judge: JES , Judge: JLW , Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 11/03/2014 [14-10621]
Case: 14-10621
Document: 00512763974
Page: 1
Date Filed: 09/10/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-10621
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 10, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
LAWRENCE ALAN HABERMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CV-223
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court dismissed the complaint of Plaintiff-Appellant
Lawrence Alan Haberman, a federal prisoner, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915A(b), by order signed May 6, 2014, for reasons cogently explained in the
court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of even date.
Our review of
Haberman’s appellate brief, the record on appeal, and the district court’s
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-10621
Document: 00512763974
Page: 2
Date Filed: 09/10/2014
No. 14-10621
opinion satisfies us that the court’s final judgment should be, and is hereby,
affirmed in all respects.
Furthermore, the district court’s dismissal of Haberman’s complaint
constitutes a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). 1
Haberman is
cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under §1915(g), he will not be
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while
he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. 2
AFFIRMED.
1
2
See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 Fed.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).
See §1915(g).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?