Filed: Feb. 25, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-31046 Conference Calendar ROLANDO ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RONNIE BOOK; PETE TOLAR; BOOKER, Captain; JOHN DOE, 1-5; JOHN DOE, 1-2, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 01-CV-1057 - February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rolando Alexander, INS detainee #A21156111, appeals the district court’s dis
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-31046 Conference Calendar ROLANDO ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RONNIE BOOK; PETE TOLAR; BOOKER, Captain; JOHN DOE, 1-5; JOHN DOE, 1-2, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 01-CV-1057 - February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rolando Alexander, INS detainee #A21156111, appeals the district court’s dism..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31046
Conference Calendar
ROLANDO ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RONNIE BOOK; PETE TOLAR; BOOKER, Captain;
JOHN DOE, 1-5; JOHN DOE, 1-2,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-1057
--------------------
February 21, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rolando Alexander, INS detainee #A21156111, appeals the
district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Alexander’s appellate brief does not address the issue of
exhaustion, which was the basis of the district court’s
dismissal. He has thus abandoned the issue on appeal. See Yohey
v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-31046
-2-
Because Alexander fails to address the only issue on appeal,
his appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. His motion for appointment of
counsel is DENIED.