Donnell v. Bellsouth Telecom, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 22, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
No. 02-60852
Summary Calendar
_______________
LEE SAMUEL DONNELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; MALCOLM C. COTTING;
W.E. WALKER; MICHAEL L. CLOMPTON; RALEIGH L. CHARPENTIER;
ROBERT A. HAMMOCK; T.A. BOWEN,
Defendants-Appellees.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

-- 1 of 4 --

2
_______________
No. 03-60624
Summary Calendar
_______________
LEE SAMUEL DONNELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; MALCOLM C. COTTING;
W.E. WALKER; MICHAEL L. CLOMPTON; RALEIGH L. CHARPENTIER;
ROBERT A. HAMMOCK; T.A. BOWEN,
Defendants-Appellees.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

-- 2 of 4 --

3
_______________
No. 03-60626
Summary Calendar
_______________
LEE SAMUEL DONNELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; MALCOLM C. COTTING;
W.E. WALKER; MICHAEL L. CLOMPTON; RALEIGH L. CHARPENTIER;
ROBERT A. HAMMOCK; T.A. BOWEN,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
m 3:00-CV-202-WS
m 3:00-CV-203-WS
_________________________
Before SMITH, DEMOSS and
STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Proceeding pro se, Lee Donnell pursues
three appeals that we consolidate for purposes
of a combined opinion. Donnell challenges
various adverse rulings in his long-running dis-
pute with his former employer, BellSouth
Communications, Inc. (“BellSouth”). Finding
no merit in any of Donnell’s contentions, we
affirm in all three cases. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has deter-
mined that this opinion should not be published and is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.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
I.
In No. 02-60852, Donnell appeals an order
enforcing a settlement of his underlying dis-
pute. As the district court noted in its compre-
hensive order, however, Donnell appeared in
court and agreed to all the settlement terms,
which included $100,000 and full retirement
benefits to Donnell.
Donnell asserts that the settlement was lim-
ited to his retaliation and defamation claims,
but the district court persuasively found other-
wise, and its finding is not clearly erroneous.
Donnell also avers that the attorney he brought
with him did not actually represent him, but
again, the district court reliably found to the
contrary. Finally, Donnell opposes the
$5,731.79 in fees and expenses that BellSouth
incurred to support the settlement that Donnell
contested. The award was reasonable, and we
will not overturn it.
There is no doubt the district court had full
authority to enforce the settlement. The court
handled that proceeding without error.
II.
In No. 03-60624, Donnell challenges an
order denying his “Plaintiff’s Motion To Cor-
rect Transcript Because of Inadvertent Er-
rors/Ommissions [sic] and Motion To Have
Transcript Copy Made Available to Plaintiff
To Be TranscribedSSAll at His Expense.” The
transcript in question is the record of the
settlement hearing mentioned above.
The district court patiently denied that
motion in a thorough, eight-page order. The
court explained that it had carefully reviewed
the transcript, which under law is deemed
prima facie correct, and had determined that
it is in every respect accurate. There is no
error in that decision.
III.
In No. 03-60626, Donnell appeals an order
denying his motion to strike all statements at-
tributable to him that are contained in the
aforementioned transcript. Because the tran-
script is accurate, and reflects statements made
in open court, the district court properly de-
nied the motion to strike.
IV.
This litigation badly needs to come to an
end. Donnell has received a substantial settle-
ment, to which he agreed. He should not fur-
ther burden the courts and defendants with
meritless attacks. We also remind him that
sanctions are available for frivolous litigation.
The orders complained of are AFFIRMED.1
1 All pending motions are DENIED, including,
without limitation, Donnell’s motions to remand,
for appointment of counsel, and to hear the tape.

-- 4 of 4 --