IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40396
(Summary Calendar)
CRAIG MACK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JERRY PETERSON, Deputy Director
of Operations, TDCJ-ID, ET AL.,
Defendants,
THOMAS C. FORD, Doctor, Coffield
Unit; JOE D. CRAWFORD, Doctor,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6:95-CV-777)
November 26, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The instant appeal by Plaintiff-Appellant Craig Mack, a state
prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice -
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
Institutional Division, is before us for the second time. It now
implicates the magistrate judge’s denial of Mack’s Rule 59(e)
motion following remand from the initial appeal to this court, and
covers Mack’s claims against Drs. Ford and Crawford for deliberate
indifference to medical needs and for retaliation. Finding this
appeal wholly frivolous and without merit, we dismiss.
Even though we apply a less stringent standard to parties
proceeding pro se than to those represented by counsel, and
liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants, such parties are not
entirely relieved of the obligations to brief the issues and
otherwise reasonably comply with the requirements of Fed. R.
App. P. 28.1 Rule 28(a)(6) requires that the appellant’s argument
set forth the reasons for the request of relief, with citation to
authorities and portions of the record on which he relies.2 An
appellant “must identify the facts relevant to the issues presented
for review, with appropriate references to the record,” . . . and
“every assertion in briefs regarding a matter in the record shall
be supported by a reference to the page number of the original
record, where the matter relied upon is to be found.”3 General
arguments which give only broad standards of review and do not cite
1
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).
2
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1995).
3
United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994)
(pro se case) (internal citations, quotations, and alterations
omitted).
2
to specific errors are insufficient to preserve issues for appeal.4
Failure to comply with the court’s rules regarding the contents of
briefs can be grounds for dismissing a party’s claims.5
Mack’s brief does not identify any error in the magistrate
judge’s decision, either expressly or inferentially. He does not
argue that the findings of fact are clearly erroneous; neither does
he assert any specific legal error. He merely raises three of the
claims that he raised in his complaint —— due process concerning
disciplinary charges, deliberate indifference to his medical needs
in making job assignments, and retaliation for filing prison
grievances. He does nothing more than to state each claim in one
or two sentences and cite a case in support of each claim, without
fully explaining his claims or showing how the legal authority
cited supports his claim. Nor does he provide any factual
background for any of his claims or any record cites to support
them. Mack’s brief is woefully insufficient to preserve any issues
for appeal.6 Therefore, consistent with this court’s Rule 42.3.2,
Mack’s appeal is
DISMISSED.
4
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
5
See 5th Cir. R. 42.3.2.
6
See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
3