IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10512
Summary Calendar
GILBERT C. TALAMANTEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEE LEWIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; ET AL,
Defendants,
LEE LEWIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; ST. PAUL
FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:96-CV-222-C
--------------------
November 26, 1999
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
IT IS ORDERED that Gilberto C. Talamantez’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED, because his appeal
lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal
is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED.
See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-10512
-2-
Talamantez has sought to appeal the district court’s grants
of summary judgment to Lee Lewis Construction Company (Lee Lewis)
and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St.
Paul). Talamantez contends that his employment by Lee Lewis was
terminated in violation of his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act; and that he has a right to enforce, in a
federal court action, a judgment which a state court awarded him
against St. Paul. The district court granted summary judgment to
St. Paul on Talamantez’s motion to vacate a state-court judgment
against him.
The lack of arguable merit of Talamantez’s appellate
contentions is shown by the district court’s memorandum opinions.
Talamantez v. Lee Lewis Constr. Co., No. 1:96-CV-222-C (N.D. Tex.
Feb. 21, 1997, and March 18, 1999) (unpublished).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Talamantez’s motion to supplement
the record is DENIED.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.