IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41402
Summary Calendar
LENARD ALFRED SMOCK, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIT HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR, Gurney Unit; UNIDENTIFIED DIXON,
Doctor, Gurney Unit; UNIDENTIFIED TALLIAFERRO, Lieutenant,
Gurney Unit; UNIDENTIFIED GUYTON, Correctional Officer,
Gurney Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-391
--------------------
May 31, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lenard Alfred Smock, Texas prisoner # 885088, appeals the
district court's dismissal without prejudice of his pro se, in
forma pauperis ("IFP") 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for want of prosecution.
The district court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution
because two of the court's orders directed to Smock were returned
as undeliverable and the court concluded that Smock had failed to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41402
-2-
provide the court with a current address. Smock has also moved for
a jury trial, for appointment of counsel, and for his claims that
were severed and transferred by the district court to be combined.
Finally, Smock has filed a motion to expedite his appeal.
The decision to dismiss a case for want of prosecution is
within the sound discretion of the district court. Green v. Forney
Eng’g Co., 589 f.3d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979) (citing Link v. Wabash
Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). We review such rulings
for abuse of discretion. Id. “The authority of a court to dismiss
sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an
‘inherent power,’ . . . necessarily vested in courts to manage
their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 630-631; see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b).
Smock's appellate brief argues the merits of his complaint but
he does not challenge the district court's order dismissing the
complaint for want of prosecution. Smock has thus waived the only
issue for appeal, see Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d
744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987), and we find no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s ruling. This appeal is without arguable merit and
is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th
Cir. 1983). It is therefore DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Smock's motions are DENIED.
No. 01-41402
-3-
The dismissal of this appeal counts as one strike under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Smock is WARNED that if he accumulates
three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he will not be able 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 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED, MOTIONS DENIED, SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.