IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30858
(Summary Calendar)
WILLIAM D. TREEBY; STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER, WITMANN & HUTCHINSON,
L.L.P.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JAMES E. AYMOND,
Defendant-Appellant,
----------------------------
DENNIS P. NEYLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMES E. AYMOND,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(CA-00-1377)
February 28, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant James A. Aymond appeals the district
court’s grant of the permanent injunction sought by Plaintiff-
Appellees Dennis P. Neyland, William D. Treeby, and Treeby’s law
firm Stone, Pigman, Walther, Witmann & Hutchinson, L.L.P.L.
(collectively “Plaintiffs-Appellees”). The district court enjoined
Aymond, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2283, from taking any further
action to prosecute his pending appeal in his state derivative
action in Louisiana state court against Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Having carefully and fully considered the record and the briefs of
counsel as well as the opinion of the district court, we are
satisfied that the permanent injunction was properly granted, and
we affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the
same reasons set forth in its comprehensive opinion.1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
1
Facially, Aymond’s vexatious, contumacious, and frivolous
appeal appears to warrant sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 38; however, inasmuch as Plaintiffs-Appellees
have not sought sanctions, we refrain from doing so sua sponte.