IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50510
__________________
JOSEPH BELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
O.A. "BOB" BROOKSHIRE;
ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-93-CV-149
- - - - - - - - - -
September 21, 1995
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph Bell moves this court for leave to proceed on appeal
in forma pauperis (IFP). See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). "To proceed
on appeal [IFP], a litigant must be economically eligible, and
his appeal must not be frivolous." Jackson v. Dallas Police
Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).
Bell argues that error occurred by the denial of his motions
for appointment of counsel. We review for an abuse of
*
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that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-50510
-2-
discretion. Id. In the context of a civil rights suit,
appointment of counsel is not required without the presence of
"exceptional circumstances." Id. (citation and internal
quotations omitted). Because an examination of the record
confirms that no such circumstances existed in this case, we find
no abuse of discretion. See id. at 262; Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691
F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982).
Bell does not challenge the findings of fact or conclusions
of law underlying the final judgment in favor of the defendants.
Therefore, any such challenge is deemed abandoned. Eason v.
Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).
Bell has not presented a nonfrivolous issue. See Jackson,
811 F.2d at 261. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that his motion for
leave to proceed on appeal IFP is DENIED. Because his appeal is
frivolous, the appeal is
DISMISSED.