IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60742
Conference Calendar
CATHERINE M. STARR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF HATTIESBURG; ALVIN EATON; JEFFERSON
B. STEWART,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:00-CV-97-PG
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Catherine Starr appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of
her pro se complaint, which the district court liberally
construed as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Starr sued the City
of Hattiesburg, a code enforcement officer, and a municipal
judge, alleging that her rights under the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated in connection with her
prosecution and conviction for having abandoned vehicles at her
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-60742
-2-
home in violation of a city ordinance. The district court
determined that the judge was absolutely immune from suit, and
that Starr had failed to overcome the defendants' summary
judgment evidence showing that she was not selectively prosecuted
for the code violation.
The district court did not err in determining that the
municipal judge who tried Starr was absolutely immune from suit.
See Hulsey v. Owens, 63 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1995)(citing
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 745 (1982), in which the
Supreme Court granted absolute immunity to judges in the
performance of their judicial duties)).
For her remaining appellate arguments, Starr contends that
the defendants' summary-judgment evidence was fabricated, that
the district court was prejudiced and biased, and that the
judgment amounts to fraud. Starr's arguments are conclusional
and fantastic. Because Starr offered only conclusional
assertions to counter the defendants' summary-judgment evidence,
she did not meet her summary-judgment burden. See Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc)
(nonmovant cannot satisfy summary-judgment burden with
conclusional allegations or unsubstantiated assertions).
This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th CIR. R.
42.2.