IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-31312
_____________________
LARRY D. CROWE; SUE ELLEN
SILMAN CROWE, Administratrix,
on behalf of Reba Coody
Crowe Succession,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
JAMES W. SMITH, ET AL.,
Defendants,
DEUTSCH KERRIGAN & STILES;
JUDY L. BURNTHORN; WILLIAM WRIGHT;
JAMES BERRY; DAVID C. TREEN;
WILLIAM W. MESSERSMITH, III;
CHARLES K. REASONOVER; DAVID L.
CAMPBELL; CHARLES F. SEEMANN, JR.;
BERTRAND M. CASS, JR.; HARRY S.
ANDERSON; FRANCIS J. BARRY, JR.;
PATRICK J. BERRIGAN; ALLEN F.
CAMPBELL; MATT J. FARLEY; G. ALEX
WELLER; DANIEL A. SMITH; ETHEL H.
COHEN; TERRENCE L. BRENNAN;
MARC J. YELLIN; HOWARD L. MURPHY;
DARRELL K. CHERRY; RICHARD B.
MONTGOMERY; PAUL S. HUGHES;
NANCY J. MARSHALL; JAMES G. WILEY,
III; D. REX ENGLISH; ELLIS B.
MUROV; JOSEPH L. McREYNOLDS;
JOSEPH L. SPILMAN, III; DURIS L.
HOLMES; WILLIAM LEE KOHLER; ATTORNEYS
LIABILITY ASSURANCE SOCIETY, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, Monroe
(92-CV-2163)
_________________________________________________________________
April 10, 1998
Before GIBSON,* JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:**
The only question before us in this appeal is whether the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing this case with
prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed and
considered fully the circumstances and context in which this
judgment was entered, including the related matter of the Crowes’
purported prior notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1). Additionally, we have had the benefit of full briefing
and argument by counsel. We finally conclude that when all the
circumstances and authorities have been considered, we cannot say
that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is
A F F I R M E D.
*
Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
-2-