Summary Calendar LARRY MARTIN ROCHE v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional…

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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
July 26, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-40480
Summary Calendar
LARRY MARTIN ROCHE
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; UNKNOWN
TEEMS, Employee of CMC; PEGGY UNKNOWN, Employee of CMC; JOHN
DOE, 1, Director of University of Texas Medical Branch; JOHN DOE, II,
Medical Manager for UTMB, Estelle Unit; JOHN DOE, III, Medical Manager
for UTMB, Powledge Unit; JOHN DOE, IV, Director of Correctional
Management Care
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CV-280
Before WIENER, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Larry Martin Roche, Texas prisoner # 1079651, appeals
the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, wherein he sought relief from a
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to exhaust

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-40480
2
administrative remedies. Roche contends that the magistrate judge abused her
discretion by denying his Rule 60(b) motion, insisting that he had exhausted the
remedies that were available to him. Alternatively, he asserts that the
exhaustion requirement should have been excused, because prison officials
prevented him from filing timely grievances.
Roche’s appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion does not bring up
the underlying judgment for review. In re Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp.
S.A., 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 1984). We review the magistrate judge’s denial
of Roche’s Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See Warfield v. Byron, 436
F.3d 551, 555 (5th Cir. 2006). Roche's Rule 60(b) motion did not indicate the
statutory basis for reconsideration, and did he raise any new issues in the
motion. Roche has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge abused her
discretion by denying his Rule 60(b) motion. See Matter of Colley, 814 F.2d 1008,
1010-11 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --