UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-30696
Summary Calendar
MARY ANN LOVELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
GARY HURFORD, President; RAY L. HUNT, Chairman; HUNT OIL COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees,
___________________________________________________
MARY ANN LOVELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
MILLS TIMMONS & FLOWERS, Succession of Meaker White,
Second Judicial District Court in and for
Claiborne Parish, Louisiana,
Defendant-Appellee,
___________________________________________________
MARY ANN LOVELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
JAMES HATCH, Attorney, Hatch & Smith,
Defendant-Appellee,
___________________________________________________
MARY ANN LOVELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
JOHN MONTGOMERY, Attorney, Second Judicial District,
Defendant-Appellee,
___________________________________________________
MARY ANN LOVELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
GARY HURFORD, President; RAY L. HUNT, Chairman,
Hunt Oil Company,
Defendants-Appellees,
___________________________________________________
MARY ANN LOVELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WAYNE TIMMONS, Mills Timmons & Flowers,
Defendant-Appellee,
Appeals from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(96-CV-584-G)
December 26, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Mary Ann Lovell, proceeding pro se, brought the consolidated
actions, and numerous others, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, registering numerous complaints
1
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
2
against various defendants having to do with mineral production
attributable to the interest of Meaker Glover White in minerals
underlying certain lands in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. Following
consolidation of the captioned cases, the district court considered
defendants’s motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) and
granted each motion dismissing plaintiff’s claims. We have carefully
reviewed the briefs on file and the record and are satisfied that the
reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum and Order filed
June 14, 1996 in the consolidated matters are correct. We therefore
affirm the district court’s dismissal of the captioned cases
essentially for the reasons given by it in its memorandum and order.
AFFIRMED.
3