Richardson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Fifth Circuit

Richardson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

101 F. App'x 977

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 2004

Docket04-30055

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 F. App'x 977 (Richardson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richardson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 101 F. App'x 977 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Mack Henry Richardson appeals from the district court’s dismissal, on grounds of res judicata, of his action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Richardson argues that his 1973 conviction does not prohibit him from owning a firearm and that he has a cause of action against the FBI under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(l). Richardson also argues that the district court should have admitted his “penitentiary packet” into evidence.

Richardson’s brief contains no argument that the district court erred in dismissing his action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “Failure to provide any legal or factual analysis of an issue results in waiver.” American States Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir.1998). Although this court liberally construes briefs of pro se litigants under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), pro se parties must still brief their issues. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995).

Because Richardson has failed to argue the only issue arguably on appeal, the appeal is frivolous and must be DISMISSED as such. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Richardson is WARNED that the filing of *978 future frivolous appeals may result in sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Mack Henry Richardson appeals from the district court’s dismissal, on grounds of res judicata, of his action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Richardson argues that his 1973 conviction does not prohibit him from owning a firearm and that he has a cause of action against the FBI under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(l). Richardson also argues that the district court should have admitted his “penitentiary packet” into evidence.

Richardson’s brief contains no argument that the district court erred in dismissing his action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “Failure to provide any legal or factual analysis of an issue results in waiver.” American States Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir.1998). Although this court liberally construes briefs of pro se litigants under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), pro se parties must still brief their issues. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995).

Because Richardson has failed to argue the only issue arguably on appeal, the appeal is frivolous and must be DISMISSED as such. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Richardson is WARNED that the filing of *978 future frivolous appeals may result in sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 F. App'x 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack