Raz v. Storey ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30474
Summary Calendar
YORAM RAZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOE STOREY; BRANDON HUCKABY; RODNEY WARREN; GLENN CHOATS; ALANZO
ALFORD; BOBBY L. CONLY; ADRIAN BATCHELOR; ROYALENE PERMENTER;
WALTER FRANCIS PETERSON, also known as Pete Peterson; LEROY A.
BIRNBROOK; MIKE FERRIS; RICHARD PERMENTER,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-1850
--------------------
March 18, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Yoram Raz appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. Raz argues that
the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his action
for failure to comply with the scheduling order, in not giving
him notice prior to dismissal, and in finding that his conduct
was contumacious. He also argues that the district court judge
was biased against him because he had dismissed a previous case
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30474
-2-
filed by Raz as frivolous. The district court was not required
to provide notice prior to dismissing the action. See Rogers v.
Kroger, 669 F.2d 317, 319-20 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court
found that Raz attempted several times to have the court modify
the scheduling order and after these attempts failed, he failed
to comply with the scheduling order; that the imposition of a
$1000 sanction had no effect on Raz’s compliance with the
scheduling order; and that the delays were attributable to Raz’s
conduct alone. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing Raz’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to prosecute. See Dorsey v. Scott Wetzel Serv., Inc.,
84 F.3d 170, 171 (5th Cir. 1996); Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975
F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992). Raz has not shown that the
district court judge was biased against him because he had
dismissed a prior case filed by Raz as frivolous; adverse rulings
alone do not call into question a judge’s impartiality. See
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Raz’s motion
for leave to supplement the record excerpts with a copy of his
motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Payne is DENIED because the
motion is already included in the appellate record.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.