Michael de Graffenried v. Smithway Motor Xpress, I , 669 F. App'x 252 ( 2016 )

Case: 16-60019 Document: 00513706153 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-60019
FILED
October 5, 2016
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MICHAEL A. DE GRAFFENRIED,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SMITHWAY MOTOR XPRESS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:14-CV-9
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Plaintiff-Appellant Michael A. de Graffenried appeals the grant of
summary judgment and the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against his
former employer, Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc. (Smithway). In his pro se
lawsuit, de Graffenried alleged that Smithway had defamed him by reporting
that his employment was terminated because he had refused a drug and
alcohol test following a workplace injury. The district court granted summary
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-60019 Document: 00513706153 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2016
No. 16-60019
judgment because de Graffenried had failed to establish a genuine issue of
material fact regarding the truth of Smithway’s representation, and in
Mississippi, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit. See Journal
Publ’g Co. v. McCullough, 743 So. 2d 352, 360 (Miss. 1999).
Even though he disputes some irrelevant factual findings in the district
court’s opinion, de Graffenried does not challenge the district court’s analysis
of his defamation claim. He does not identify any legal error for review by us,
and he does not cite any legal authority to support overturning the grant of
summary judgment. Although we apply less stringent standards to parties
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, and we liberally
construe the briefs of pro se litigants, parties proceeding pro se must still brief
the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements set forth in Rule 28
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523,
524 (5th Cir. 1995). As de Graffenried has not challenged the district court’s
reasons for dismissing his defamation action, he is deemed to have abandoned
the sole issue before us. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
Cir. 1987) (holding that, 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 the
judgment).
In light of de Graffenried’s abandonment of his claim, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.
2