George La Blanche, III v. Prairie View A&M Univers, (5th Cir. 2011)

Status: Not Published

Docket Number: 10-20602

Linked as:

Text

Case: 10-20602 Document: 00511425996 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 28, 2011

No. 10-20602

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

GEORGE D. LA BLANCHE, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PRAIRIE VIEW A & M UNIVERSITY; KPVU RADIO; CHERYL GRANGER

BROOKS; JEFFREY KELLEY; FRED WASHINGTON, Vice President Auxiliary

Services; ALBERT GEE, Assistant Vice President Human Resources; RADHIKA

AYYAR, Director Employee Services,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-2978

Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* George D. La Blanche, III, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Insofar as La Blanche wishes to appeal the order dismissing his suit, we lack jurisdiction to consider the correctness of this judgment due to his failure to timely notice an appeal from it. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). However, he did timely notice his appeal from * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-20602 Document: 00511425996 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2011 the magistrate judge’s denial of his postjudgment motion, which is best classed as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Harcon Barge Co. v.

D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc). We thus consider whether La Blanche has shown that he should be permitted to proceed IFP in this appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The appellee has filed a motion for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing deadlines.

La Blanche asserts that he is impoverished and that the magistrate judge was biased. Additionally, he avers that the magistrate judge had jurisdiction over his suit, that he did not raise a Title VII claim, and that he raises a valid retaliation claim. These allegations are insufficient to show that La Blanche will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Consequently, all outstanding motions are DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.