IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-11393
Conference Calendar
SCOTT MICHAEL VOSBERG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT;
TIM CURRY, District Attorney,
Tarrant County TX; DAVID WILLIAMS,
Sheriff Tarrant County Texas;
RONALD G. COUCH, Attorney at Law
Tarrant County TX,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CV-893-Y
- - - - - - - - - -
October 26, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Scott Michael Vosberg, Texas prisoner # 898149, appeals from
the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.
His motions requesting an appeal hearing, discovery, oral
hearing, incorporation of plaintiff’s pro se documents, an order
to bench warrant plaintiff for an oral fact-finding mission, and
execution of sanctions are DENIED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-11393
-2-
In his Rule 60(b) motion, Vosberg had argued that the
district court had erred in dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). On
appeal, Vosberg reurges the substance of his claims against his
attorney, the prosecutor, the sheriff, and the police department
relating to his arrest and detention. He contends that his Rule
60(b) motion was timely filed and should not have been denied.
Vosberg has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to
relief under any of the grounds provided in Rule 60(b) or that
the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion was an abuse
of discretion. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enter., Inc., 38
F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED. MOTIONS DENIED.