eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2003-04

Gore v. US Dept Agriculture ( 2003 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   April 2, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-30654
Summary Calendar
BILLY GORE; JANET GORE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, on behalf of United
States Secretary of Agriculture; FARM SERVICES AGENCY; HARRY
MOCK, JR., Franklin Parish County Executive Director; ROBERT
BRADLEY, Farm Services Agency Program Specialist; WILLIE COOPER,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-38
--------------------
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Billy and Janet Gore (the Gores) appeal from the summary
judgment dismissal of claims against the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA), and individual defendants Harry Mock, Jr.,
Robert Bradley, and Willie Cooper.     The Gores, who were catfish
farmers, sought review of a USDA decision denying their application
for disaster benefits under the Crop Loss Disaster Assistance
Program (CLDAP).    They also sought monetary damages from the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30654
-2-
individual defendants for their alleged actions in connection with
the USDA’s denial.
The   Gores    first   argue   that   the   Louisiana   Farm   Service
Agency (Louisiana FSA) exceeded its authority in overruling a
determination of the Franklin Parish County Committee.          The Gores
raised this issue in proceedings before the National Appeals
Division of the USDA, which determined that the Louisiana FSA did
not exceed its authority.       This court “will affirm the agency’s
interpretation unless, in light of the language and purpose of the
regulation, it is unreasonable.” Sid Peterson Memorial Hospital v.
Thompson,
    274 F.3d 301
    , 308 (5th Cir. 2001).        The Gores have failed
to show that the USDA’s interpretation of regulations governing the
CLDAP is unreasonable.      See
    7 C.F.R. §§ 1477.102
    , 1477.109(c).
The Gores also argue that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on their claim that their due process rights were
violated in not having the opportunity to participate in the
meeting of the Louisiana FSA committee.          “Absent an identifiable
property interest, the [a]ppellants cannot argue they were denied
due process.”      Wilson v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture,
    991 F.2d 1211
    , 1216 (5th Cir. 1993).      “The mere fact that a government
program exists does not give a person a property interest in
participating in the program.”
    Id.
    The Gores argue in conclusory fashion, and without citation to
supporting authority, that they acquired a vested property interest
in CLDAP benefits by virtue of the decision of the Franklin Parish
No. 02-30654
-3-
County Committee, and thus have failed to demonstrate that they had
an   identifiable   property   interest    subject   to   due   process
protection.
The Gores have failed to brief any argument pertaining to the
dismissal of claims against the individual defendants.      This court
will not raise and discuss legal issues that the appellant has
failed to assert.   When an appellant fails to identify any error in
the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant
had not appealed that judgment.     See Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.