Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

717 F.3d 447

Docket No. 12-30300

Frazier v. Wingo

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided July 2, 2013.

This page is marked noindex.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2013-07-02

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 2014

2 counsel of record

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Yohey v. Collins · Reginald R. Brinkmann, Jr. v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 2013-07-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.

¶2William Frazier, Florence, CO, pro se.

¶3Jennifer Bailey Frederick, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

¶4*448Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM: *

¶6William Frazier, federal prisoner # 01073-748, filed a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the United States and a Bivens1 action against Tony Wingo (Wingo) and other unknown officers employed by the Bureau of Prisons at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. Frazier alleged that, when he was transferred to a Special Housing Unit, Wingo and the other officers confiscated his property and discarded it.

¶7The district court dismissed Frazier’s FTCA claim against the United States for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed his Bivens action against Wingo and the other unknown officers on summary judgment. He now appeals. This court’s review is de novo. Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir.2010).

¶8On appeal, Frazier fails to challenge the dismissal of his FTCA claim. By failing to identify any error regarding the dismissal of this claim, it is the same as if Frazier had not appealed this issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Frazier has thus abandoned on appeal any arguments against the dismissal of this claim. Additionally, Frazier’s brief fails to provide facts and argument challenging the district court’s conclusion that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims set forth in his Bivens action. Even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Issues not briefed are considered abandoned; thus, these claims are also deemed abandoned. See id.

¶9AFFIRMED.

/717/f3d/447 · .json · Public domain