IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-20064
Summary Calendar
__________________
SAMUEL CHARLES VANNESS, IV,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES BENNETT,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-94-4061
- - - - - - - - - -
August 28, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Samuel Charles VanNess, IV, # 725945, appeals from the
dismissal of his civil rights suit for failure to effectuate
proper service. For the first time on appeal, VanNess contends
that his failure to effect service was due to the failures of the
U.S. Marshal and court clerk to perform the duties required of
them. This alleged error, involving questions of fact, does not
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-20064
-2-
rise to the level of plain error. See Robertson v. Plano City of
Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).
VanNess's appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We caution appellant that any additional frivolous appeals filed
by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, appellant is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.