IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 95-40576 & 95-41031
Summary Calendar
EDWARD B. LYON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. SHAW, JR.; JAMES DUKE;
NOLAN A. PITTCOCK; RICKY JONES;
COFFIELD UNIT, TDCJ-ID; K. COX,
Captain; PHILLIP CRUTCHER,
Lieutenant; A.K. ODEN; T. EDWARDS,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
EDWARD B. LYON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NOLAN A. PITTCOCK,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 6:94-CV-462 & 6:95-CV-382
- - - - - - - - - -
September 26, 1996
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
Nos. 95-40576 & 95-41031
- 2 -
Edward B. Lyon, Jr., Texas state prisoner #454153, appeals
from the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law on
behalf of some defendants, jury verdict in favor of some
defendants, and dismissal of his claims against one defendant as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in his civil rights
suit. Lyon argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction
to hear the case, that the magistrate judge erred by dismissing
his pendant state claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act, that the
jury instruction with regard to his failure-to-protect claim was
fundamentally defective, that the magistrate judge erred by
entering a judgment as a matter of law in favor of Warden Shaw,
that the magistrate judge deprived him of the testimony of two
necessary witnesses at trial, that the magistrate judge erred by
failing to sequester a defense witness, that he was denied a fair
trial because of defense counsel’s improper closing argument,
that the magistrate judge erred by holding a second Spears
hearing on Lyon’s claims against defendant Pittcock after
Pittcock was severed from the case, and that the magistrate judge
erred by dismissing his claims against Pittcock as frivolous
pursuant to § 1915(d). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed for
essentially the reasons stated in the memorandum orders entered
by the magistrate judge. See Lyon v. Shaw, No. 6:94cv462 (E.D.
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
Nos. 95-40576 & 95-41031
- 3 -
Tex. June 6, 1995); Lyon v. Shaw, No. 6:94cv462 (E.D. Tex. June
7, 1995); Lyon v. Pittcock, No. 6:95CV382 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1,
1995). Additionally, the magistrate judge’s failure to sequester
a defense witness and her denial of Lyon’s motion for a
continuance did not constitute plain error. See United States v.
Wylie, 919 F.2d 969, 976 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Shaw,
920 F.2d 1225, 1230 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 926
(1991). Further, Lyon’s argument that defense counsel misstated
the evidence in his closing argument lacks support in the record.
Nor has Lyon shown plain error from the absence of two inmate
witnesses from his trial. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.