eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2006-02

Rogers v. Metropolitan Transit Authority , 164 F. App'x 529 ( 2006 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 February 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20810
Summary Calendar
FLOYD THOMAS ROGERS, SR., and as next of kin, minors Rebekah
Kwanita Rogers, Jonah Jarrad Rogers, and Joelle Jamal Jamal
Rogers; DYKEBA LECOLE ROGERS, and as next of kin, minors Rebekah
Kwanita Rogers, Jonah Jarrad Rogers, and Joelle Jamal Jamal
Rogers,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY; FIRST TRANSIT, INC.; MICHAEL
JOSEPH, Safety Supervisor; AUTURO JACKSON, Manager of Metrolift
Services; MARY ANN DENDOR, ADA Coordinator,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-2865
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Floyd Thomas Rogers and his wife, Dykeba Lecole Rogers,
filed the instant suit on behalf of themselves and their three
minor children to seek redress for their alleged personal
injuries as well as purported violations of their civil and
constitutional rights.   The district court dismissed the suit for
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20810
-2-
want of prosecution and denied their request to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) on appeal.   The appellants now move this court for
authorization to proceed IFP on appeal.
The motion for authorization to proceed IFP is GRANTED.
See Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir. 1983); Carson v.
Polley,
    689 F.2d 562
    , 586 (5th Cir. 1982).    Nevertheless, the
appellants have not shown that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing their suit for want of prosecution.      See
Liteky v. United States,
    510 U.S. 540
    , 554-55 (1994); Matassarin
v. Lynch,
    174 F.3d 549
    , 571 (5th Cir. 1999).    Consequently, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.