No. 99-40687
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40687
Conference Calendar
THARWAT M. HAMAMCY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-94-CV-55
--------------------
February 17, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tharwat M. Hamamcy filed a complaint in federal district
court against the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (the
Board) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the Board denied him
due process and equal protection in revoking his medical license.
The Board moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it is
barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, that
Hamamcy failed to state a claim under § 1983, and that the suit
is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral
estoppel owing to the fact that five other state and federal
lawsuits filed by Hamamcy against the Board have all terminated
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-40687
-2-
in the Board's favor. The district court granted the motion to
dismiss.
We have previously rejected claims by Hamamcy against the
Board arising from the revocation of his medical license, on the
ground that the Board was entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity. Hamamcy v. Texas Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, Case No. 94-
60776 (5th Cir. June 29, 1995) (unpublished).** Hamamcy did not
brief the res judicata/collateral estoppel basis of the district
court's dismissal, and he has thus abandoned that issue. See
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The
district court's grant of the motion to dismiss may be affirmed
on this theory. See Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30
(5th Cir. 1992) (court may affirm judgment on any basis supported
by the record).
This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. Appellant is cautioned that any future frivolous
appeals will be subject to the imposition of sanctions.
DISMISSED.
**
Although unpublished opinions issued on or after January
1, 1996, are not precedent, they may nevertheless be persuasive.
See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Further, such opinions do have
precedential value under the doctrines of res judicata and
collateral estoppel.