IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-11029
_____________________
MICHAEL J. MONCRIEF, Etc.; ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
W.A. “TEX” MONCRIEF, JR., Etc.; ET AL,
Defendants.
--------------------
W.A. “TEX” MONCRIEF, JR.; CHARLES B. MONCRIEF;
RICHARD W. MONCRIEF; MONTEX DRILLING COMPANY,
Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
BILLY W. JARVIS,
Third Party Defendant-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:98-CV-528-E)
_________________________________________________________________
September 9, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, STEWART, Circuit Judge, and ROSENTHAL,
District Judge*.
*
District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting
by designation.
PER CURIAM:**
The court has jurisdiction over this appeal. See City of
Waco v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 293 U.S. 140
(1934).
On brief and at length at oral argument, appellant claimed
that he was denied the opportunity in the district court to
develop the necessary facts. That argument is devoid of merit.
The district court’s Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration
and Clarifying Order entered July 7, 1998 specifically advised
that “[i]f a party wishes to assert a right to an evidentiary
hearing or request further discovery on an issue, he may do so by
filing an appropriate written request in a timely fashion.” If,
indeed, appellant failed to take advantage of that invitation,
the problem is of his own making.
The Order of the District Court entered August 3, 1998
denying appellant’s Petition for Certification is affirmed for
substantially the reasons stated in that Order.
AFFIRMED.
**
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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