IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40617
Conference Calendar
__________________
REYES FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIMMY E ALFORD, Warden; ROBERT J PARKER;
IEASHA M HAYNES; DERRICK BLAKEMORE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:94-CV-913
- - - - - - - - - -
December 19, 1995
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Flores appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing
his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an
excessive use of force. Flores argues that his factual
allegations show that Haynes and Blakemore subjected him to cruel
and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Flores challenges the factual findings made by the magistrate
judge after a bench trial. Flores also argues that Officers
Haynes and Blakemore filed their answers beyond the 20-day time
limit set by the magistrate judge in her order. He also argues
*
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of
opinions that 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Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.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. 95-40617
-2-
that Attorney Kosanovich was present at trial after Edward
Sanchez was substituted as attorney for the defendants.
We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
and find no reversible error in relation to the filing of the
defendants' answers and the substitution of counsel issues.
Further, review of the magistrate judge's findings depends on a
trial transcript. Flores has failed to provide a transcript.
These issues are therefore meritless. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b);
Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113
S. Ct. 668 (1992); Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 901 (1990) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, Flores' appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.
We caution Flores that any additional frivolous appeals
filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid
sanctions, Flores is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.
APPEAL DISMISSED.