Filed: Oct. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-10202 Conference Calendar ROBERT W. TOOMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF WEATHERFORD, TEXAS; PARKER COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CV-30-A - Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert W. Toomer ap
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-10202 Conference Calendar ROBERT W. TOOMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF WEATHERFORD, TEXAS; PARKER COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CV-30-A - Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert W. Toomer app..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10202
Conference Calendar
ROBERT W. TOOMER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF WEATHERFORD, TEXAS; PARKER COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-30-A
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert W. Toomer appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous for failing to state
a cognizable claim. Toomer’s complaint had accused various city
officials and city employees of: (1) harassment, (2) unlawful
arrest and selective prosecution, (3) verbal and physical abuse,
(4) setting fire to his house, (5) stealing and defacing his
property, and (6) unlawfully detaining and deporting his ailing
wife. In his appellate brief, Toomer does not address the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10202
-2-
district court’s conclusion that he failed to state a cognizable
claim.
Failure to identify an error in the district court’s
analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the
judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Toomer has failed to
contest the district court’s conclusion that he failed to state a
cognizable claim, he has waived the only issue relevant to his
appeal. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Toomer’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus
frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.
1983). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
We caution Toomer that the filing of frivolous appeals and
motions will invite the imposition of a sanction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.