Hinton, et al v. Lay, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 29, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-20443
Summary Calendar
KENNETH A. HINTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH L. LAY; ANDREW FASTOW;
J. CLIFFORD BAXTER, Estate; ENRON CORP.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-591
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Hinton, federal prisoner # 17746-016, appeals the
district court’s FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) dismissal of his complaint
of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants. Hinton
contends that he complied with two of the district court’s orders
to file a more definite statement and that the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint under Rule 41(b) was an abuse of

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-20443
-2-
discretion. He also challenges the district court’s denial of
his motion to be joined in a multidistrict action against Enron.
Our review of the record reveals that the district court did
not err or abuse its discretion when it dismissed Hinton’s
complaint following his failure to respond to two orders for him
to show cause. See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127
(5th Cir. 1988); McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 792 (5th Cir.
1988). The district court’s denial of Hinton’s motion to be
joined in the multidistrict suit against Enron was also not
error.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --