James v. Terrell

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-30589 _______________________

HENRY JAMES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TERRY TERRELL, Warden; MILLER, Sergeant; B. THOMPSON, Sergeant,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (CA-94-0410) _________________________________________________________________

May 07, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry James (“James”), an inmate of the Allen

Correctional Center, has appealed the dismissal of his civil rights

action for failure to state a claim against Warden Terry Terrell

and two correctional officers.

As his appellate brief, James offers no additional

argument whatsoever on any of the asserted legal issues, but rather

merely files a Xerox copy of his supplemental civil rights

Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. complaint, his motion for leave to file it, his opposition to a

memorandum filed by the defendants, and the prayer for relief of

his original complaint.

Nowhere in this purported appellate brief does James

either state or argue any issue on appeal before this court. As a

result, this court AFFIRMS the judgment of the district court

without considering it on its merits. See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle, 69

F.3d 28 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that “[a]n appellant’s brief must

contain an argument on the issues that are raised, in order that

we, as a reviewing court, may know what action of the district

court is being complained of. There is no exemption for pro se

litigants, though we construe their briefs liberally.”) (citations

omitted); Weaver v. Puckett, 896 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1990) (prisoner

abandons objection if he does not provide an argument containing

the reasons justifying the requested relief “with citation to the

authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.”)

(citations omitted); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6) (requiring that the

brief of the appellant contain a developed argument).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

court dismissing James’ complaint for failure to state a cognizable

claim is AFFIRMED.