Lowery v. Metro Transit Auth ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20528
Summary Calendar
ROSE MARY LOWERY
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-98-CV-3811)
December 2, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rose Mary Lowery, appealing pro se, seeks review of the
district court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment
and the district court’s cancelling of a hearing on plaintiff’s
motion to remove her counsel of record and defendant’s summary
judgment motion. We find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in granting summary judgment without deciding
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
plaintiff’s motion to terminate her attorney, and we affirm the
district court’s grant of summary judgment.
In response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment,
plaintiff’s counsel, Ronald Mock, filed an answer which the
district court has correctly characterized as “utterly non-
responsive” and noted that “Mock’s inadequate filing on behalf of
Lowery creates an appearance that either Mock is plainly
incompetent or that he could care less about the representation of
Lowery in this proceeding.” Lowery immediately filed pro se a
second answer which was also non-responsive.
In addition, Lowery filed a letter, and later a formal motion
to remove Mock as her counsel, in which she asked for an extension
of time to hire a new attorney. The court scheduled a hearing for
April 5 on the motion to remove counsel and defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. On April 4, Lowery filed pro se an addendum to
her answer to the motion for summary judgment. While more
responsive than her previous answers, this out of time reply also
lacked any evidence to refute the motion for summary judgment.
The district court apparently canceled the hearing scheduled
for April 4, and instead granted defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on April 11. As we have stated in the past, the district
court has wide discretion to determine its calendar.1 Therefore it
1
HC Gun & Knife Shows, Inc., v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 544, 549-550
(5th Cir. 2000).
2
was not an abuse of discretion to cancel the hearing and rule on
the summary judgment motion.
As to the merits of the motion for summary judgment, this
court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment.2 After
reviewing the case, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for the same reasons stated by the district court in its
order granting summary judgment. The district court is therefore
AFFIRMED.
2
Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th
Cir.1998).
3