United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 1, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20401
In The Matter Of: CHARLES BENTON MUSSLEWHITE; CAROLYN
DIAZ MUSSLEWHITE
Debtors
---------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BENTON MUSSLEWHITE
Appellant
v.
JOHN M. O’QUINN; JOHN M. O’QUINN & ASSOCIATES LLP,
formerly known as JOHN M. O’QUINN PC
Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston
(USDC No.4:04-CV-4186)
_________________________________________________________
1
Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Robin Ziek, an appointed state court receiver, appeals the district
court’s judgment denying her motion to clarify prior orders and, in the alternative,
for leave to file an action for declaratory judgment. We dismiss this appeal for
inadequate briefing.
The district court issued two alternative outcome determinative holdings in
this case. First, the district court held that the bankruptcy court order was final and
the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata bar relitigation of Charles
Benton Musslewhite’s rights under the Option Upside Agreement. Second,
separate and apart from the claim or issue preclusive effect of any particular order,
after withdrawing the reference in Musslewhite’s bankruptcy case, the district court
held on the merits that the “undisputed record establishes conclusively that
Musslewhite has absolutely no right to payment from Option Cases through the
Option Upside Agreement.”
Ziek addresses the district court’s first holding—the collateral estoppel and
res judicata issues, but fails to address the district court’s second holding—that the
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
2
“undisputed record establishes conclusively that Musslewhite has absolutely no
right to payment from Option Cases through the Option Upside Agreement.”
Because the district court’s second holding was outcome determinative, and Ziek
failed to brief it, we dismiss this appeal for inadequate briefing.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3