IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10926
Conference Calendar
JAMES SLAUGHTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAVID GUINN, JR.; Federal Attorney; TANYA K.
PIERCE, Assistant United States Attorney,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:99-CV-158-C
--------------------
August 23, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court dismissed James Slaughter's (#130049)
civil rights complaint without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. Previously, this court remanded the case for a ruling
on an outstanding motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The
district court denied the motion. Because Slaughter did not file
a new notice of appeal or an amended notice of appeal indicating
his intent to appeal the district court's order disposing of the
Rule 59(e) motion, this court’s review is limited to the district
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-10926
-2-
court’s July 28, 1999, judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii);
Bann v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 108 F.3d 625, 626 (5th Cir. 1997).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a district court may dismiss an
action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any
court order. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th
Cir. 1988). Such a dismissal is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Id. Slaughter has filed a brief in this court which
contains argument regarding the merits of his civil rights
complaint but which fails to discuss the question whether the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint
for failure to prosecute. Because Slaughter failed to discuss
the district court's rationale for dismissing his complaint, he
has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion.
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R.
42.2. The dismissal of this appeal counts as a "strike" pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Slaughter is CAUTIONED that, if he
accumulates three "strikes," he will not be permitted to proceed
IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated
or detained in any facility, unless he is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.