IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-50458
Summary Calendar
ROBERT EARL WASHINGTON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-97-CV-1093
- - - - - - - - - -
October 29, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Earl Washington, Texas prisoner # 644155, appeals
from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition for failure to exhaust available state remedies.
Washington’s motion for “Leave to file motion for supplemental
brief for writ of habeas corpus” is GRANTED. All remaining
outstanding motions are DENIED.
The district court granted Washington a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal the following issue identified by
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-50458
-2-
the court: whether “the byzantine Texas state law procedures for
attacking [prison disciplinary] proceedings . . . offer an
effective means of litigating federal constitutional claims” as
applied to Washington. Because Washington has not requested a
COA from this court to address other issues, that is the only
issue properly before us. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149,
151-52 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d 429,
431 (5th Cir. 1998).
Because Washington did not file objections to the magistrate
judge’s report recommending that his petition be dismissed for
failure to exhaust, this court’s review is for plain error.
Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29
(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Although not artfully stated, Washington occasionally
comments that he was denied an opportunity to pursue his step 1
and step 2 grievances. Washington does not identify what event
he sought to grieve, such as whether it related to the challenged
disciplinary action. Nor does he address the COA issue framed by
the district court or explicitly state whether he appealed his
disciplinary cases or otherwise attempted to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Pro se litigants must brief arguments
in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225
(5th Cir. 1993). Washington has failed to demonstrate that the
district court plainly erred in dismissing his petition for
failure to exhaust state remedies. Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.