IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40682
Summary Calendar
GREGORY A. SHANAFELT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS; TERRY BOX,
Collin County Sheriff; MARK SANDERSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(No. 4:99-CV-279)
_________________________________________________________________
November 7, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Former Texas prisoner Gregory A. Shanafelt appeals, pro se, a
summary judgment in favor of Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action challenging the validity of his 1997 arrest. He does not
brief any challenge either to the district court’s dismissal of his
claims against the Attorney General of Texas and Sheriff Terry Box
or to the district court’s imposition of sanctions against him;
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
these issues are deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Shanafelt’s conclusional allegations that the judge’s
signature on the arrest warrant is invalid cannot overcome summary
judgment, see Michaels v. Avitech, Inc., 202 F.3d 746, 754-55 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926 (2000); his contentions regarding
statements made to a reporter do not give rise to a genuine issue
of material fact, see FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); and his contention that
defendant Sanderson lied in his affidavit in support of the arrest
warrant is frivolous in the light of the record. In sum, the
record reflects that Sanderson arrested Shanafelt pursuant to a
valid arrest warrant.
Thus, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and
Defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See,
e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) FED. R.
CIV. P. 56. Because Shanafelt’s appeal is without arguable merit,
it is frivolous and must be dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
In the light of this appeal being frivolous, we GRANT
Appellees’ motion for sanctions to the extent they seek to recover
their costs for defending this appeal. We therefore ORDER
Shanafelt to pay $2345.53, the verified costs presented to this
court for the proceedings taken since the filing of the notice of
appeal. Shanafelt is hereby warned that the filing of future
2
frivolous appeals in this court could result in the imposition of
further sanctions, including monetary sanctions or bars on future
filings.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS;
APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS GRANTED IN PART;
SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED
3