Homer G. Maxey v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Lubbock, 459 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Homer G. Maxey v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Lubbock, 459 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cynthia L. Clark v. MV Reality of Louisiana, No. 3:23-cv-00445 (M.D. La. May 14, 2026)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 57 Dismissal for failure to prosecute and show cause orders6 citing casesaffirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute where plaintiff failed to respond to show cause order5 citing courts put it this way
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Homer G. MAXEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
72-1160.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 18, 1972.
Published opinion
459 F.2d 56
1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10021
L. Wayne Kreis, Harold D. Hammett, Henry W. Simon, Jr., Fort Worth, Tex., Kenneth Bowlin, Lubbock, Tex., Simon & Simon, Henry W. Simon, Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant., R. L. Davidson, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., Charles B. Jones, Key, Carr & Clark, Bernard P. Evans, Lubbock, Tex., M. Ward Bailey, James M. O’Leary, Odessa, Tex., Evans, Pharr, Trout & Jones, Lubbock, Tex., Shafer, Gilliland, Davis, Bunton & McCollum, Odessa, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Thornberry, Coleman, Ingraham.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order dismissing plaintiff’s suit by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, for want of prosecution. Plaintiff filed his suit on March 15, 1966 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The suit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division. A suit involving the same parties and issues was also filed in the District Court of Lubbock County, Texas. The Federal suit lay dormant for more than four years while the parties pursued their trials and appeals in the State courts.

Pursuant to show cause order, of which all attorneys were duly notified on September 28, 1970, and to which none responded, the Federal court suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on November 2, 1970. On October 19, 1971, more than a year after the show cause order was served and just short of a year after the suit was dismissed, plaintiff moved to reinstate the Federal court suit. The motion to reinstate was denied, hence this appeal.

The dismissal of the dormant suit was pursuant to adequate notice. We are unable to perceive from the record or the briefs that the court in any way abused its discretion in the dismissal of the suit or the denial of the motion to reinstate.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.