Murungi, et al v. Mercedes Benz Credit

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30329
Conference Calendar
JAMES H. MURUNGI; ASENATH K. MURUNGI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MERCEDES BENZ CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-3200-N
--------------------
October 25, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James H. and Asenath K. Murungi appeal from the district
court’s entry of judgment for the defendant after granting the
defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss.
The Murungis move to supplement the appellate record with
documents that were not presented to the district court in this
case. IT IS ORDERED that their motion is DENIED.
The Murungis assert that their retained counsel in this
civil matter rendered ineffective assistance, and therefore, the
district court should not have granted Mercedes Benz Credit

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-30329
-2-
Corporation’s (MBCC’s) motion to dismiss based on the lack of
opposition to that motion. “[T]he sixth amendment right to
effective assistance of counsel does not apply to civil
proceedings.” Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d
1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). Any claim of malpractice which the
Murungis might have against their former counsel is “separate and
distinct from” the suit against MBCC from which this appeal
arises. Id.
The Murungis disagree with the district court’s denial of
their postjudgment motion. After the district court denied the
motion, the Murungis neither amended their notice of appeal nor
filed a second notice of appeal in order to appeal the district
court’s ruling. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction over
the matter. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B); Reeves v. Collins, 27
F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 1994).
This appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R.
42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. MOTION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --