Daniels v. Cement Masons

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 9, 2024
• Docket: 23-20595
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-20595 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED December 9, 2024 No. 23-20595 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

Homer Daniels, Jr.,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Cement Masons Pension Fund for Northern California,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CV-1935 ______________________________

Before Smith, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Pro se plaintiff Homer Daniels, Jr., filed a complaint raising claims under section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), which the district court dismissed as time barred. On appeal, Daniels asserts that he is entitled to pension benefits as alleged in

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-20595 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2024

No. 23-20595

his complaint. He does not argue that the district court erred in any way by dismissing the complaint. This court construes pro se briefs liberally, but even a pro se litigant must brief arguments to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Davis v. Lumpkin, 35 F.4th 958, 962 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022). When an appellant fails to identify any error in a challenged ruling, it “is the same as if he had not appealed” that ruling. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). By not briefing any challenge to the dismissal of his complaint, Daniels has abandoned any such challenge. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. AFFIRMED.