IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40072
Conference Calendar
DAVID LAVORD DODD; ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
PAUL D. HARVEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THOMAS L. FORD; JAMES MEYERS;
COFFIELD UNIT ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:97-CV-66
- - - - - - - - - -
August 19, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul D. Harvey, Texas inmate # 686576, proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s dismissal,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40072
-2-
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), of his civil
rights lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Harvey contends that he did
not receive a copy of the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation.
A complaint filed IFP is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable
basis in law or fact.” Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193
(5th Cir. 1997). We review the dismissal of an IFP complaint as
frivolous for an abuse of discretion and the dismissal for
failure to state a claim de novo. Id.; see Black v. Warren, 134
F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
Although we apply less stringent standards to parties
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), pro se parties
must assert the issues that they wish to present on appeal and
must argue some error in the district court’s decision. See
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); see Brinkmann
v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
Cir. 1987). Parties have an implicit duty pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 77(d) “to inquire periodically into the status of
their litigation.” Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d
1199, 1201 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Harvey does not challenge
the reasons for the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit, he has
abandoned the only issue on appeal with respect to the claims
that were before this court. Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
No. 98-40072
-3-
Harvey’s appeal is without arguable merit, is frivolous, and
is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Harvey is cautioned that any future
frivolous appeals or pleadings filed by him or on his behalf will
invite the imposition of sanctions. Harvey should therefore
review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise
arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.