Sumrall v. Rockco ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60665
Conference Calendar
HOUSTON G. SUMRALL; SHAWN RICHARD O’HARA;
KATIE RENE PERRONE; RICHARD JOHNSON;
CARL DAVID WALKER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CONNIE ROCKCO; BOBBY ELEUTERIUS; LARRY BENEFIELD;
MARLIN LADNER; WILLIAM MARTIN; JOSEPH MEADOWS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:00-CV-402-BrR
--------------------
April 10, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Houston G. Sumrall, Shawn Richard O’Hara, Katie Rene
Perrone, Richard Johnson, and Carl David Walker appeal the
dismissal without prejudice of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellants’ brief
does not discuss the basis of the district court’s dismissal for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Even under a liberal
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-60665
-2-
interpretation, the appellate brief is unsatisfactory. This
court “will not raise and discuss legal issues that [the
appellants have] failed to assert.” See Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
The appellants’ failure to identify any error in the district
court’s legal analysis or the application of law to the lawsuit
“is the same as if [they] had not appealed that judgment.” Id.The appellants aver that the district court abused its
discretion in denying their motion for a default judgment based
on the appellees’ alleged failure to respond to interrogatories.
The appellants do not state the nature of the interrogatories or
the manner in which the responses were allegedly inadequate.
Given the record before the court, it cannot be said that the
district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for
default judgment. See Thomas v. Kippermann, 846 F.2d 1009, 1011
(5th Cir. 1988).
The appellants’ appeal is without merit, and it is DISMISSED
as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The appellants are warned that the
filing of future frivolous appeals will invite the imposition of
sanctions. They should review any pending appeals to ensure that
they do not raise issues which are frivolous.
DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.