United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50560
Summary Calendar
ANNETTE S. MUECKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
B. THOMAS HALLSTEAD; STATE FARM LLOYDS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CV-805
--------------------
Before GARZA, DEMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Annette S. Muecke appeals the district court’s denial of her
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion. Although the motion purported to
relate only to the order granting summary judgment in favor of
the defendants, she also sought reconsideration of various other
district court orders.
As an initial matter, we DENY State Farm’s motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction, DENY Muecke’s motions to supplement the
record, DENY AS UNNECESSARY State Farm’s motion to strike one of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-50560
-2-
Muecke’s motions to supplement, and DENY Muecke’s motion for
sanctions. Any remaining motions are likewise DENIED.
This court reviews the denial of a FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)
motion for an abuse of discretion. Travelers Ins. Co. v.
Liljeberg Enters., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994);
Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981).
Under this standard, “[i]t is not enough that the granting of
relief might have been permissible, or even warranted--denial
must have been so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of
discretion.” Eskenazi, 635 F.2d at 402.
Muecke’s brief contains a series of rambling, disjointed,
and often incomprehensible arguments. She also raises numerous
arguments that are largely irrelevant to the central issue on
appeal, i.e., whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying her FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion. After having reviewed
the record and the briefs on appeal, we conclude that Muecke has
failed to show that the district court’s denial of her FED. R.
CIV. P. 60(b) motion was so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse
of discretion. Id. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Because the face of the appeal borders on being frivolous,
we caution Muecke that the filing of any frivolous appeals will
invite the imposition of sanctions in the future. To avoid
sanctions, Muecke is further cautioned that she should review any
No. 04-50560
-3-
pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that
are frivolous.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; ALL OTHER
MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.