Westridge v. Steeg ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60461
Conference Calendar
MAURICE WESTRIDGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MOISE STEEG, JR.; RANDY OPOTOWSKY;
BERNARD BERINS; THOMAS H. KINGSMILL,
JUDGE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:98-CV-250-LN
--------------------
August 27, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maurice Westridge appeals the district court’s dismissal of
a complaint he brought against Moise Steeg, Jr., Randy Opotowsky,
Bernard Berins, and Bankruptcy Judge Thomas H. Kingsmill.
Westridge has failed to brief whether the district court erred in
dismissing his complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction,
improper venue, and judicial immunity; he asserts simply that
diversity jurisdiction was proper.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-60461
-2-
General arguments that do not cite to specific errors are
insufficient to preserve issues for appeal. See Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). “Failure to provide any legal or factual analysis results
in waiver.” American States Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363,
372 (5th Cir. 1998). Failure to present any authority in support
of an argument results in an abandonment of the issue. United
States v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249, 258 (5th Cir. 1994). Even
construing Westridge’s brief liberally, we find the brief to be
insufficient. Because Westridge has not provided this court with
any legal or factual analysis, we DISMISS the appeal as
frivolous. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993);
5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.