* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion s hould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10198 In the Matter of: GASTON A. SHUMATE, Debtor.

BKS PROPERTIES; BERNADINE KAY SHIRLEY; 4500 WESTWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; PETER B. BARTHOLOW; VICTORIA M. BARTHOLOW; THEODORE O. BARTHOLOW, JR., and MOLLY W. BARTHOLOW, Appellees, VERSUS GASTON A. SHUMATE, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:97-MC-105-X) August 10, 1999 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * The debtor/appellant, Gaston Shumate, appearing pro se , appeals various orders, including, primarily, an order of the district court adopting findings and conclusions of the bankruptcy court. Although it is difficult to discern, from Shumate's brief, what issues he is raising, he pla inly appeals the bankruptcy court's finding of civil contempt and complains of the imposition of a permanent injunction and the granting of title relief.

These disputes have been in court since 1991. Shumate has had full opportunity to litigate his grievances in several fora. In 1997, he was held in contempt for knowing and deliberate violations of a 1994 order and was enjoined fr om continually reasserting challenges to final judgments of state and federal courts. The tone of his attack is shown, for example, by the assertion, in his reply brief in this appeal, that “[t]he Court of Appeals judgment discussed below is the civil equivalent of criminal embezzlement.” The courts have shown admirable patie nce with Shumate, as evidenced by, inter alia , the detailed findings of fact and conclusio ns of law entered by the bankruptcy court in its impressive twenty-two-page opinion entered on October 29, 1997, and adopted by the district court. We find no error in those findings and conclusions. The judgment of the district court, accordingly, is AFFIRME D, essentially for the reasons set forth in the bankruptcy court's opinion.