Floyd Abston, Jr. v. Fannie Mae, et al, No. 12-20208 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-20208 Document: 00512120223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-20208 Summary Calendar January 22, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk FLOYD ABSTON, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant v. FANNIE MAE; CHEVY CHASE BANK, FSB, A Federal Savings Bank, now known as Capital One Bank; CAPITAL ONE MORTGAGE COMPANY; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-327 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Floyd Abston, Jr., appeals the district court s dismissal, for want of prosecution and under its inherent authority, of the suit he brought to stop foreclosure upon his house. Insofar as Abston contends that the dismissal was only for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), our reading of the record refutes this contention and shows that the suit was * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-20208 Document: 00512120223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 No. 12-20208 dismissed both because the district court found it frivolous and because Abston failed to appear for a hearing and offered no good reason for his failure to appear. Under Abston s view, the district court erred by dismissing his suit for want of prosecution because he missed only one hearing, and this was due to a misunderstanding. He also contends that the district court erred by not considering lesser sanctions before dismissing his suit and that he has a valid claim under the Truth in Lending Act. Our review of the record and the parties filings shows no abuse of discretion in connection with the district court s conclusion that the suit was frivolous and its concomitant dismissal on this basis. See Gonzalez v. Trinity Marine Group, Inc., 117 F.3d 894, 898 (5th Cir. 1997). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
