IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-20190
Summary Calendar
_____________________
FRANCES M. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KELSEY-SEYBOLD CLINIC, P.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
(CA H 94 2839)
_________________________________________________________________
(September 15, 1995)
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court dismissed this discrimination suit brought
by Frances Smith against her former employer after Smith failed to
comply with pretrial discovery orders, and this appeal followed.
Smith's attorney filed an opening brief that consists of about two-
and-a-half pages, leaving aside the title pages, the certificate of
interested persons, the statement regarding oral argument, the
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
table of contents, the table of authorities, the statement of
jurisdiction, and the signature block. It is more a recitation of
law than an argument. It does not urge, in so many words, that the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing her suit, as our
cases require. E.g., Callip v. Harris County Child Welfare Dept.,
757 F.2d 1513, 1519 (5th Cir. 1985). Moreover, Smith's attorney
has prosecuted this appeal in flagrant disregard of our established
rules of appellate procedure.1 Counsel is admonished that further
such conduct will invite sanctions from this court. This appeal is
clearly frivolous and, as such, is hereby DISMISSED. See Loc. R.
42.2.
D I S M I S S E D.
1
The following list of transgressions is intended to be
illustrative rather than exhaustive. The record excerpts were not
filed with her brief and did not include the order that she appeals
from, in violation of Fed.R.App. P. 30(a) and Loc. R. 30.1.2. and
30.1.4. Nowhere does Smith's brief cite to the record, as required
by Fed.R.App.P. 28(a)(4) & (6) and Loc. R. 28.2.3; nor does it
identify the applicable standard of review, as required by
Fed.R.App.P 28(a)(6) and Loc. R. 28.2.6. The jurisdictional
statement does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 28(a)(2) and
Loc. R. 28.2.5.
-2-
2