UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-40671
Summary Calendar
ANTHONY LINDON BETHEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
JIMMIE E. ALFORD, ET AL,
Defendants,
JIMMIE E. ALFORD,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
(6:93-CV-186)
February 6, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, District Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Appellant, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner,
sued nearly fifty defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to
proceed in forma pauperis. His application was denied. Only one
defendant was served. That defendant answered and moved for
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) which
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
motion was granted. Later the district court also dismissed all
remaining defendants for lack of service. Appellant then moved for
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) which was denied, except that the
district court modified the dismissal of the unserved defendants to
be without prejudice. Appellant seeks to appeal all of the actions
of the district court. We find the appeal frivolous and dismiss.
Appellant’s notice of appeal is timely only with respect to
the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. We therefore
have jurisdiction to review that matter only. We find no abuse of
discretion in the denial of that motion and affirm it.
Appellant’s brief in this court is largely incomprehensible.
He does not specifically address how the district court allegedly
abused its discretion in denying his motion and does not adequately
argue any point raised.
Appellant sought relief from his obligation to serve all of
the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(c). That
Rule is inapplicable here because it deals only with pleadings
transmitted between defendants, not service by the plaintiff on a
defendant. Clearly the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying relief.
Appellant is warned that the bringing of further frivolous
appeals will result in the imposition of sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2