Filed: Nov. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30586 Conference Calendar CHARLES CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TOWN OF NEW ROADS, Mayor; JOHN R. JARREAU; BUDDY JOE LEONARD; JAMES BEST, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CV-461-B-M2 - - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Charles Carter appe
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30586 Conference Calendar CHARLES CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TOWN OF NEW ROADS, Mayor; JOHN R. JARREAU; BUDDY JOE LEONARD; JAMES BEST, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CV-461-B-M2 - - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Charles Carter appea..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30586
Conference Calendar
CHARLES CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TOWN OF NEW ROADS, Mayor; JOHN R.
JARREAU; BUDDY JOE LEONARD; JAMES BEST,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 95-CV-461-B-M2
- - - - - - - - - -
October 24, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Carter appeals from the district court’s dismissal
of his civil rights complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey,
114
S. Ct. 2364 (1994). Carter has not adequately briefed the
district court’s determination that his § 1983 claims are not
cognizable under Heck nor has he briefed the court’s
determination that, insofar as Carter is seeking habeas relief,
he has not exhausted his state remedies. These issues are
therefore deemed abandoned on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.