Bobby Lucky v. Kelli Ward , 459 F. App'x 394 ( 2012 )

Case: 11-40447 Document: 00511735593 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 25, 2012
No. 11-40447
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BOBBY LUCKY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
KELLI WARD; RICHARD A. TRINCI, JR.; CHUMA ANADUAKA; KATHRYN
ANN BELL; DOCTOR BRUCE SMITH; AND JANE DOE,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CV-166
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bobby Lucky, formerly Texas prisoner # 1048046, filed a complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kelli Ward, Richard A. Trinci, Jr., Chuma Anaduaka,
Kathryn Ann Bell, Dr. Bruce Smith, and Jane Doe. The district court granted
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Lucky’s motion under
Rule 59(e) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure. This court affirmed the
district court judgment.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-40447 Document: 00511735593 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2012
No. 11-40447
More than a year later, Lucky filed in the district court a new motion for
reconsideration or a rehearing, arguing that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment for the defendants because the defendants failed to submit
sufficient affidavits, the trial court failed to issue a scheduling order which
caused him to miss his opportunity to respond to the motion for summary
judgment, and he was impeded in responding by the State of Texas. The district
court denied the motion, noting that it had ruled on some of Lucky’s arguments
when it ruled on his Rule 59(e) motion and that this court had affirmed its
judgment on the matter.
Lucky now appeals, arguing only reasons why the district court erred in
granting summary judgment. He has identified no error in the district court’s
denial of his new motion for reconsideration. Although pro se briefs are liberally
construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Failure to identify any error
in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed
the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2