Filed: Jul. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40423 Summary Calendar BERTRAND BROWN; ET AL Plaintiffs BERTRAND BROWN Plaintiff - Appellant v. JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION Defendant - Appellee - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-428 - July 18, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Bertrand Brown, Texas state pris
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40423 Summary Calendar BERTRAND BROWN; ET AL Plaintiffs BERTRAND BROWN Plaintiff - Appellant v. JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION Defendant - Appellee - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-428 - July 18, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Bertrand Brown, Texas state priso..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40423
Summary Calendar
BERTRAND BROWN; ET AL
Plaintiffs
BERTRAND BROWN
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
Defendant - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:95-CV-428
--------------------
July 18, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bertrand Brown, Texas state prisoner #296134, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint
without prejudice. He argues that the district court erred by
dismissing his civil rights complaint without prejudice based
merely upon the number of defendants named and claims raised in
the suit and that the district court abused its discretion by
denying his motion for the appointment of counsel. We have
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-40423
-2-
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Brown has not
shown that the district court erred by dismissing his civil
rights complaint without prejudice, and he has shown no
exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.
See Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
Finally, because Brown has not adequately briefed his claims that
the district court erred by ordering him to pay a $26.97 initial
partial filing fee and by denying his motion for a temporary
restraining order, these claims are deemed abandoned on appeal
and are therefore not considered by this court. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.