Parker v. McLaurin ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                           United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    June 23, 2004
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT         Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-10649
    Conference Calendar
    TOMMY L. PARKER, Rabbi,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    RON McLAURIN; JESSE MENDEZ,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:02-CV-115-C
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Tommy L. Parker, a Texas resident, appeals from the district
    court’s order granting the defendants’ FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
    motion to dismiss his complaint, purportedly filed pursuant to
    the civil rights provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to
    state a claim on which relief may be granted.
    Parker sought damages from the defendants, McLaurin and
    Mendez, who are attorneys in private practice, for violations of
    his due process rights.    Parker made the following allegations:
    After he hired McLaurin to represent him in a state-law matter,
    McLaurin effectively abandoned him.     Parker then sued McLaurin,
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-10649
    -2-
    who hired Mendez as his own attorney.      During this second
    proceeding, McLaurin perjured himself, and both McLaurin and
    Mendez engaged in improper ex parte communications with the trial
    judge.
    The district court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)
    motion on the ground that Parker’s allegations failed to
    establish that either defendant had acted under “color of state
    law.”    See Morris v. Dearborne, 
    181 F.3d 657
    , 666 n.6 (5th Cir.
    1999).    In his pro se appellate brief, Parker has failed to
    challenge the legal basis upon which the district court dismissed
    his complaint.   Failure to identify an error in the district
    court’s analysis is the same as if Parker had not appealed
    the judgment.    Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987).   Accordingly, Parker’s appeal
    is without arguable merit, Howard v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 219-20
    (5th Cir. 1983), and we DISMISS the appeal as frivolous.        5TH CIR.
    R. 42.2.
    Parker’s motion to amend his reply brief is DENIED as
    unnecessary.
    APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO AMEND DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-10649

Judges: Barksdale, Demoss, Clement

Filed Date: 6/24/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/1/2024