Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Deaton v. Veneman, 02-60484 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 02-60484 Visitors: 65
Filed: Jan. 07, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 02-60484 Summary Calendar _ JAMES W. DEATON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGENCY, Defendant - Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi Lower Docket No. 1:01-CV-53-B-A _ January 6, 2003 Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The pro se appellant challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgme
More
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                      _______________________

                            No. 02-60484
                          Summary Calendar
                      _______________________


JAMES W. DEATON,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                               versus

                     ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY,
               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGENCY,

                                                Defendant - Appellee.



_________________________________________________________________

          Appeal from the United States District Court
            for the Northern District of Mississippi
                 Lower Docket No. 1:01-CV-53-B-A

_________________________________________________________________

                          January 6, 2003


Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

          The pro se appellant challenges the district court’s

grant of summary judgment to the Agriculture Department in his suit


     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
brought for termination of employment.    Deaton argues that he is

entitled to default judgment, that the district court judge should

have recused himself, and that the district court erred in granting

the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Because the appellant

does not cite any legal authority or comprehensible legal arguments

in support of his position, and his brief does not even grapple

with the issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel on which

the court based its decision, this court considers the challenges

abandoned for being inadequately briefed.   L&A Contracting Co. v.

S. Concrete Servs., Inc., 
17 F.3d 106
, 113 (5th Cir. 1994); F.R.A.P.

28(a)(9)(A).

          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.




                                 2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer