Braun v. Chief Exct Offcr ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-31057
Summary Calendar
DARREL A. BRAUN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY;
EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Governor;
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Senator,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________
DARREL A. BRAUN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KESSLER CORP., Invention Service Corp.;
U.S. PATENT OFFICE, Washington, D.C.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC Nos. 94-CV-3422-C, 94-CV-3423-C
--------------------
August 31, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrel A. Braun appeals after postjudgment relief was denied
in these proceedings brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Braun has
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-31057
-2-
also filed several motions in connection with his appeal,
including a motion to supplement the record on appeal, a motion
to stay proceedings in this court, a motion to compel attachment
of civil actions, a motion to attach records on appeal, and a
motion to consolidate appeals. Those motions are DENIED, as are
all other outstanding motions.
Although Braun’s “Notice of Appeal [and] Request to Re-Open
by Claiming Rights of Pre-Destined Fate by Acts of God” was
ineffective as a notice of appeal, see United States v. Cooper,
876 F.2d 1192, 1194 (5th Cir. 1989), his motion for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), filed in the district court, was
the substantial equivalent of a notice of appeal and was
effective to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this court.
See Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 408-09 (5th Cir. 1985).
Even though Braun’s IFP motion was filed more than 30 days after
the entry of the district court’s final judgment and therefore
did not confer appellate jurisdiction over that judgment, it did
confer appellate jurisdiction over three postjudgment orders:
(1) the magistrate judge’s order denying Braun’s motion for
copies of the case records; (2) the district court’s subsequent
order denying Braun’s request for review of that particular order
of the magistrate judge; and (3) the district court’s order
denying Braun’s “Motion to Delete Rules of Presented 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Form) . . . .”
In his appellate brief, Braun fails to point to any error in
the entry of those three postjudgment orders. A party’s failure
to identify any error on the part of the district court is the
No. 99-31057
-3-
same as if the party had not even appealed. See Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). Braun has provided no grounds for reversal.
MOTIONS DENIED; AFFIRMED.