Filed: Apr. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-30899 Summary Calendar _ MILFORD LEE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS TED BERTHELOT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (CA-93-1004-A) _ April 9, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Milford Lee appeals from summary judgments dated January 5, 1995, and July 25, 1995, in favor of defendants in his civil rights suit with
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-30899 Summary Calendar _ MILFORD LEE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS TED BERTHELOT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (CA-93-1004-A) _ April 9, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Milford Lee appeals from summary judgments dated January 5, 1995, and July 25, 1995, in favor of defendants in his civil rights suit with ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 95-30899
Summary Calendar
_______________
MILFORD LEE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
TED BERTHELOT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(CA-93-1004-A)
_________________________
April 9, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Milford Lee appeals from summary judgments dated January 5,
1995, and July 25, 1995, in favor of defendants in his civil rights
suit with supplemental state law claims. Lee’s arguments on
appeal, regarding his official and personal capacity suits, are
dismissed for failing to provide an argument as required by FED. R.
APP. P. 28(a)(6). See Moore v. FDIC,
993 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1993). We have reviewed the record and Lee’s brief regarding the
alleged unconstitutional seizure and affirm the summary judgment
for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
2