Ware v. Doe ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-10026
    Conference Calendar
    ROBERT DALE WARE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN DOE, Hearing Officer, ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    JIM DUKE, Warden; JOHN DOE, Regional
    Director Tennessee Colony;
    JOHN DOE, Deputy Director,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:95-CV-193
    - - - - - - - - - -
    April 17, 1996
    Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Robert Dale Ware appeals the district court’s order for him
    to provide the names of two defendants to his complaint.   Ware
    also appeals the district court’s order entered pursuant to Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 54(b) dismissing the complaint against three
    defendants pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (d).
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-10026
    - 2 -
    This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its
    own motion if necessary.    Mosley v. Cozby, 
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th
    Cir. 1987).   The district court’s order of December 14, 1995,
    ordering Ware to identify the two remaining defendants is not a
    final or otherwise appealable order.    See Dardar v. Lafourche
    Realty Co., 
    849 F.2d 955
    , 957 (5th Cir. 1988).   As we lack
    jurisdiction, this portion of the appeal is DISMISSED.
    Ware has failed to provide legal arguments sufficient to
    provide this court a basis for review of the district court’s
    action in entering judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
    dismissing the three defendants.    See Grant v. Cuellar, 
    59 F.3d 523
    , 525 (5th Cir. 1995).   This appeal is frivolous.      See Howard
    v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir. 1983).   Because the appeal
    is frivolous it is DISMISSED.    See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.
    Ware is cautioned than any additional frivolous appeals
    filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions.      To avoid
    sanctions, Ware is further cautioned to review any pending
    appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
    frivolous.
    APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING.