Chambers v. Picard , 86 F. App'x 705 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 29, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30642
Summary Calendar
DERRIC CHAMBERS, ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
DERRIC CHAMBERS; SHANNON CHAMBERS; JACOB ARMSTEAD; EDWIN WATKINS;
EDDIE WATKINS, JR.; ANNA WATKINS; CHARLOTTE CHAMBERS; JACQUELINE
ODDS; CHRISTINA ELLIS; BRENDA N. PERKINS; SAMUEL ELLIS; LILLIE
ANGEL; JEREMY GREEN; JUDY MARTIN; AMANDA SCOTT; KAREN STEWART;
PATRICIA ARMSTEAD; BENJAMIN ARMSTEAD; JOSHUA WILLIAMS;
Plaintiffs-Appellants
GLORIA VESSEL; KENYA NASH; MARLIN NASH;
RONALD THOMAS; COREY NASH,
Appellants,
versus
CECIL PICARD, Superintendent Department of Education; BILL
MILLER, Assistant Superintendent Department of Education; ROGER
BURKE; LOUISIANA HIGH SCHOOL RULING ON STUDENTS ADMINISTRATION;
LOUISIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-810-D
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-30642
-2-
The instant suit was filed by several individuals associated
with the Second Chance Academy. The district court dismissed the
suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the district
court likewise denied the plaintiffs’ postjudgment motion for new
trial. The plaintiffs now appeal the district court’s denial of
their postjudgment motion. They also move this court to
supplement the record on appeal.
We first note that there is an issue concerning which
plaintiffs filed a valid notice of appeal. However, we pretermit
this jurisdictional question because this appeal lacks merit.
See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000);
United States v. Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992).
The plaintiffs challenge the district court’s denial of
their postjudgment motion. They do not dispute the district
court’s characterization of this motion as a FED. R. CIV. P. 59(a)
motion for new trial, nor do they challenge the district court’s
reasons for denying the motion. Rather, they argue only that
they were at an unfair disadvantage in the district court because
they lacked counsel. This argument is unavailing. The denial of
a motion for new trial is not appealable. See Osterberger v.
Relocation Realty Serv. Corp., 921 F.2d 72, 73 (5th Cir. 1991);
Youmans v. Simon, 791 F.2d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 1986). Moreover,
the plaintiffs’ argument concerning their lack of counsel shows
no error in the underlying judgment dismissing their suit for
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-30642
-3-
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Osterberger, 921 F.2d
at 73. To the extent that the plaintiffs attempt to raise
several new issues for the first time in their reply brief, we
decline to consider these issues. See United States v. Prince,
868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir. 1989). The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED, and the motion to supplement is
DENIED.