Hubbard v. Sub Sea Intl

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30812
Summary Calendar
ALEX LEE HUBBARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUB SEA INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.,
Defendants,
versus
DAVID W. OESTREICHER, II,
Movant-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT L. HACKETT,
Movant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(91-CV-4022-M)
_________________________________________________________________
March 29, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert L. Hackett, a lawyer representing himself, appeals the
district court’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses against him.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Hackett contends the court erred by denying his continuance motion
and by admitting testimony at the hearing.
We review a continuance-denial for abuse of discretion and
“will not substitute our judgment concerning the necessity of a
continuance for that of the district court unless the complaining
party demonstrates that it was prejudiced by the denial”. See
Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks omitted); Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582,
590-91 n.11 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 976 (1979).
Claiming that the record speaks for itself, Hackett has not stated
any claimed prejudice as a result of the denial. See Streber, 221
F.3d at 736. He has, therefore, not shown abuse of discretion.
See Spinkellink, 578 F.2d at 590-91 n.11.
Concerning the challenged hearing testimony, Hackett has
neither described the testimony nor identified any prejudice or
harm resulting from its admission. Claiming permitting the
testimony violated a district court local rule, Hackett did not
even deem it necessary to include a transcript of the hearing in
the record on appeal. He has totally failed to comply with FED. R.
APP. P. 28(a)(9) (each argument must contain “appellant’s
contentions and the reasons for them” as well as “a concise
statement of the applicable standard of review”). Thus, he has

-- 2 of 3 --

3
abandoned this issue on appeal. E.g., Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --