IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________________
No. 96-20450
(Summary Calender)
______________________________
CHERYL ROWE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
JOEL D. MALLORY, JR.
Appellant,
versus
CSC CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,
ET AL.
Defendants,
LEE FISCHER & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________
Appeal From the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)
(No. 94-1178)
____________________________________________
February 19, 1997
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
1
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Lee Fischer & Associates,
Inc. (Fischer) on Plaintiff-Appellant Cheryl Anne Rowe’s claims of
defamation, invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with
prospective contractual relations and from the district court’s
final order that Fischer recover from plaintiff’s counsel, Joel D.
Mallory, Jr.1 and the Webster Law Firm, jointly and severally, the
sum of $19,467.70, together with post-judgment interest at the rate
of 5.25% per annum, as sanctions for violations of Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court assessed
these Rule 11 sanctions after determining that Mallory and the
Webster Law Firm asserted claims against Fischer in plaintiff’s
Original Complaint, plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and
plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, without having conducted
reasonable inquiries as to whether Fischer was a proper party to
this action.2
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
We noted that Mallory had not indicated his state bar roll
number below his signature on the brief he submitted in this
appeal, even though he had done so on the Notice of Appeal and in
the pleadings he submitted in the district court. We therefore
inquired with the Texas State Bar Association as to Mallory’s
status and learned that he is presently under administrative
suspension for non-payment of dues and occupational tax.
2
The assessment of Rule 11 sanctions against Mallory and his
firm originates in United States Magistrate Judge Nancy K.
2
The Notice of Appeal states that plaintiff Rowe “files an
appeal from all summary judgment orders entered against her in
favor of . . . Lee Fischer and Associates, Inc.” Neither Rowe nor
Mallory, however, set forth any basis to overturn the district
court’s order in their Appellants’ Brief. Accordingly, this court
determines that these issues have been waived and will not be
considered. Mallory himself, however, asserts that the district
court abused its discretion in assessing Rule 11 sanctions against
him and his law firm.
In conducting our de novo review, we carefully evaluated the
record on appeal, the arguments of counsel for both parties as set
forth in their respective briefs to this court, and the applicable
law, and we have come to the firm conclusion that the district
court correctly analyzed the issues, applied the appropriate law,
and reached the correct result in assessing Rule 11 sanctions
against Mallory. We therefore affirm in all respects the district
court’s final judgment for the reasons expressed in its thorough,
articulate, and well reasoned Memorandum and Order dated November
27, 1996.
AFFIRMED.
Johnson’s order granting Fischer’s motion for sanctions. The
district court treated the magistrate judge’s order as a memorandum
and recommendation, treated the appeal filed by Mallory and his law
firm as timely-filed objections thereto, and then, after a de novo
review of those portions of the order to which they objected,
adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation in a
thorough Memorandum and Order of its own dated February 27, 1996.
3
4