Parker v. McLaurin , 103 F. App'x 801 ( 2004 )

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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.