UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                          _______________________

                              No. 00-60416
                            Summary Calendar
                     Civil Docket #1:98-CV-191-B-D
                        _______________________


SHERMAN HALL,

                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                   versus

RICK HAYES; TOMMY WALLACE; CURTIS AUSTIN; THE CITY OF COLUMBUS,
MISSISSIPPI, POLICE DEPARTMENT,

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.


_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Northern District of Mississippi
_________________________________________________________________
                            May 9, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:*

            Appellant Hall challenges the dismissal without prejudice

of his § 1983 claim against Columbus, Mississippi police officer

Rick Hayes.    On appeal, Hall has briefed and argued only the merits

of   his   claim   that   Hayes   repeatedly   arrested   and   maliciously




      *
            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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
prosecuted him in order to coerce him to become an informant.

Since the merits were never decided, we cannot rule on his claim.

           Hall has not briefed the correctness of the district

court’s dismissal, which occurred because Hall did not show up for

trial, having failed to deposit money to cover costs of his

transportation from prison to attend trial.        Nor has Hall briefed

whether the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for

relief   from   judgment.   These   issues   are   waived.   Hainze   v.

Richards, 

, 798 (5th Cir. 2000).

           The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.




                                    2