IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60181
Summary Calendar
GARRY LEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ELZY J. SMITH, Circuit Judge Bolivar County;
JOHN L. PEARSON, Circuit Judge Bolivar County;
BROOKS ALEXANDER, County Attorney;
H.M. “MACK” GRIMMETT, Sheriff; EUGENE HALL,
Deputy; GEORGE T. KELLY, JR.; CHARLES DEPUTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:89-CV-250-D
- - - - - - - - - -
November 10, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Garry Lee, Mississippi inmate # 39820, proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, appeals from the district court’s denial of
his second Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Lee has also filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining
order. The motion is DENIED.
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua
sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-60181
-2-
Cir. 1987). A postjudgment motion which challenges the
underlying judgment, requests relief other than correction of a
purely clerical error, and is served more than ten days after
judgment is entered is treated as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, 784 F.2d 665, 667
(5th Cir. 1986)(en banc). Any motion alleging substantially the
same grounds as a previous motion will be deemed successive, and
any appeal based on such a motion is not reviewable by this
court. Charles L.M. v. Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist., 884 F.2d
869, 870 (5th Cir. 1989). When the time for notice of appeal on
a plaintiff’s initial Rule 60(b) motion has run, the filing of
another such motion does not interrupt the running of the time
for appeal and does not provide a second opportunity for
appellate review. Charles L.M., 884 F.2d at 870-71; see Latham
v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1203 (5th Cir. 1993).
Lee appealed the district court’s denial of a successive
motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The denial of the
motion is not reviewable by this court. See Charles L.M., 884
F.2d at 870-71; see Latham, 987 F.2d at 1203. Accordingly, the
appeal is DISMISSED.
DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.