IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60704
Summary Calendar
__________________
BRYAN WASHINGTON; JAMES
M. LYLE, IV,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
JOE PRICE, Sheriff; RICK GASTON,
Capt.; JIMMY JOHNSON, Captain;
CRAIN, Dr.; JACKIE NEELY, Nurse;
DIANE ELLINGTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:95CV26RR
- - - - - - - - - -
July 24, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James M. Lyle, IV, Mississippi state prisoner #84998,
appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment to
the defendants in Lyle's civil rights suit. Lyle's notice of
appeal was purportedly filed on behalf of both Lyle and Bryan
Washington. Because Washington did not sign the notice of
appeal, however, the notice is not effective as to Washington.
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 95-60704
-2-
See Carter v. Stalder, 60 F.3d 238, 239 (5th Cir. 1995). The
appeal is therefore DISMISSED as to Washington for lack of
appellate jurisdiction.
Lyle argues that the district court erred by granting the
defendants' motion for summary judgment without first conducting
an evidentiary hearing, that the district court failed to
consider Lyle's brief in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, and that the district court erred by adopting verbatim
the defendants' brief in support of their motion for summary
judgment as its own memorandum order. The district court was not
required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defendants'
summary-judgment motion. See Daniels v. Morris, 746 F.2d 271,
274-75 (5th Cir. 1984). Further, Lyle has failed to demonstrate
that the affidavits filed by him in response to the motion for
summary judgment were not received and considered by the district
court. Finally, Lyle has offered this court no support for his
assertion that the district court is prohibited from adopting the
legal analysis and reasoning set forth in a brief submitted in
support of a summary-judgment motion as its own memorandum order.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.