Filed: Apr. 14, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-60516 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60516 Conference Calendar JOHNNIE HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOYCE ANDERSON; EDWIN SMITH; JAMES V. ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:97-CV-3-D-A - April 14, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Johnny Hudson, Mississippi prisoner
Summary: No. 99-60516 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60516 Conference Calendar JOHNNIE HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOYCE ANDERSON; EDWIN SMITH; JAMES V. ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:97-CV-3-D-A - April 14, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Johnny Hudson, Mississippi prisoner N..
More
No. 99-60516
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60516
Conference Calendar
JOHNNIE HUDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOYCE ANDERSON; EDWIN SMITH; JAMES V. ANDERSON,
SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:97-CV-3-D-A
--------------------
April 14, 2000
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Johnny Hudson, Mississippi prisoner No. 05459, appeals from
the district court’s denial of injunctive and mandamus relief.
Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines
v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), arguments must be briefed in
order to be preserved for appellate review and litigants must
support their arguments with citation to the record. Yohey v.
Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP.
P. 28(a)(9)(A). Hudson’s appellate brief does not comply with
this standard. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-60516
-2-
APPEAL DISMISSED.