Anderson Wallace, Jr. v. Terrebonne Parish School , 616 F. App'x 136 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-30323      Document: 00513193850         Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/15/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-30323                         United States Court of Appeals
    Summary Calendar                                Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 15, 2015
    ANDERSON WALLACE, JR.,                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    TERREBONNE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
    Defendant - Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:13-CV-420
    Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Proceeding pro se, Anderson Wallace, Jr., appeals the denial of his
    motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
    We review the denial of a Rule 60 motion for abuse of discretion. In re Isbell
    Records, Inc., 
    774 F.3d 859
    , 869 (5th Cir. 2014). Wallace claims that the
    district court abused its discretion by denying his motion without giving
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 15-30323     Document: 00513193850     Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/15/2015
    No. 15-30323
    Terrebonne Parish School Board (“Terrebonne”) an adequate opportunity to
    respond. He does not cite any statute or authority to support this novel theory,
    and his argument fails for inadequate briefing. See Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
    Wallace also argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to hear
    his case. But Wallace’s own attorney signed a written consent form pursuant
    to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) before trial. The form was then signed by Terrebonne’s
    counsel and filed with the district court, establishing consent in the record. See
    Archie v. Christian, 
    808 F.2d 1132
    , 1137 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc). Thereafter,
    Wallace never raised an objection to proceeding before a magistrate, nor did he
    appeal the judgment. A “Rule 60(b) motion is not to be used as a substitute for
    appeal.” Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 
    635 F.2d 396
    , 402 (5th Cir. 1981). This
    argument is both waived and without merit. See 
    Archie, 808 F.2d at 1137
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2