
    Anthony Ricardo BELK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION; Doe’s A through Z, inclusive; Jim Middleton; Ann Day; Dan Williams; Yvonne Jackson; Althea Womble, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-21274.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 11, 2003.
    Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Ricardo Belk, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his action with prejudice. At the heart of that court’s two-phase dismissal of the multiple claims asserted by Belk is his protracted failure to comply with the court’s two orders that Belk amend his complaint to state grounds on which relief could be granted. Despite Belk’s numerous accusations against defendants, defense counsel, and even the district court, the only issue cognizable on this appeal is the court’s orders of dismissal, which we review for abuse of discretion.

We have painstakingly reviewed the record on appeal and the assertions of the parties in their appellate briefs. As a result, we are firmly convinced that the district court committed no legal error and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Belk’s claims. We therefore affirm the rulings appealed by Belk.

Furthermore, we have observed with concern the essentially conclusional accusations leveled by Belk at, among others, the district court. Although that court was exceedingly tolerant of this pro se litigant’s vituperative and - to our satisfaction - unfounded attacks on the court’s motives and integrity, we are less tolerant. Belk’s largely unsupported accusations and their vituperative tenor seriously approach - and likely cross - the line separating vigorous advocacy and sanctionable behavior. We caution Belk that any further displays of this nature will expose him to the full panoply of sanctions at the disposal of the courts, including contempt. AFFIRMED at Appellant’s cost. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     