IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 97-21021
Summary Calendar
________________________
LAMBERT O. ADUMEKWE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MERCHANT’S HOME DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
(H-97-CV-3277)
________________________
July 29, 1998
Before DeMOSS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Although not entirely clear, the appellant, Lambert O.
Adumekwe, appears to appeal from the district court’s dismissal of
his complaint of employment discrimination on res judicata grounds
and the district court’s imposition of sanctions against him under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for violating the court’s order prohibiting him
from filing additional papers related to his previously settled
employment-discrimination claims.1
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
1
Appellant’s motion to waive the requirement to file record excerpts is
hereby GRANTED.
Even though we apply a less stringent standard to parties
proceeding pro se than to those represented by counsel, and we
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. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).
Rule 28(a)(6) requires that the appellant’s argument set forth the
reasons for the requested relief, with citation to the legal
authorities and the portions of the record on which he relies. See
United States v. Yohey, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1995). Failure
to comply with the court’s rules regarding the contents of briefs
can be grounds for dismissing a party’s claims. See 5th Cir. R.
43.3.2.
Adumekwe’s brief does not identify any error in the district
court’s decisions, either expressly or inferentially. In fact, he
has completely failed to point to any portion of the record or to
any legal authority that would suggest that the district erred in
dismissing his complaint and imposing sanctions. Instead, he
merely asks this court to “look into the whole judgment in this
case.” Because such a request fails to comply with the rules set
forth above, Adumekwe’s appeal can be summarily dismissed pursuant
to Rule 43.3.2.
Nonetheless, we have examined the district court’s orders and
find no legal error in its decision to grant Merchant’s motion to
dismiss on the basis of res judicata. Likewise, we find no abuse
of discretion in its decision to sanction Adumekwe under Rule 11.
See Uithoven v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 884 F.2d 844 (5th
Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
As a final matter, because we find this appeal frivolous, and
noting Adumekwe’s pattern of filing frivolous papers in the
district court, we hereby ADVISE Adumekwe that any further
frivolous filings in this court will result in the imposition of
sanctions.