Case: 09-30884 Document: 00511117705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 20, 2010
No. 09-30884
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
STEVEN M HUNTER,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:06-CV-1745
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Following entry of final judgment denying his request for 28 U.S.C. § 2241
relief, Steven M. Hunter, federal prisoner # 03704-017, appeals the dismissal of
his September 8, 2009, motion for summary judgment, contending that the
district court erred in dismissing the motion prior to its service on the United
States Parole Commission and without addressing the merits. He has also
moved for appointment of counsel and to remand his case so that the district
court may rule on the merits of his summary judgment motion. Hunter,
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 09-30884 Document: 00511117705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
No. 09-30884
however, has failed to adequately brief the summary judgment dismissal and,
therefore, has waived its review. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County. Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Moreover, the denial of Hunter’s September 8, 2009, summary judgment
motion is not the subject of this appeal. The instant appeal number, 09-30884,
was assigned to Hunter’s appeal from the district court’s denial of Hunter’s
request for unconditional habeas corpus release. He has, however, failed to brief
the denial of this motion and has thus waived its review. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). In light of the preceding, the judgment of the
district court is affirmed, and Hunter’s motions for appointment of counsel and
remand are denied.
After Hunter filed his appellate brief, he submitted for filing a pleading
entitled “Appellant Response to the Court Order Dated February 2, 2009,”
addressing the merits of the district court’s ruling on remand that he was not
entitled to § 2241 relief. The propriety of the district court’s judgment denying
Hunter relief on the merits is the subject of appeal number 09-31186, which is
currently pending before this court.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
REMAND DENIED.
2