No. 99-60483
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60483
Conference Calendar
WILLIAM KOHL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI;
SCOTT CLAYTON, in his individual and
official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:97-CV-633-GR
--------------------
April 11, 2000
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Kohl (Kohl) appeals the district court's summary
judgment in favor of Scott Clayton, a police officer with the
Moss Point, Mississippi, Police Department and the City of Moss
Point, Mississippi. Kohl alleged various federal and state law
claims against Clayton and the City of Moss Point, including a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court reviews a grant of
summary judgment de novo. Al-Ra'id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 31 (5th
Cir. 1995).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-60483
-2-
Kohl's appeal consists only of general arguments regarding
the standard of review for a grant of summary judgment. Kohl
does not challenge the district court's reasons for granting
summary judgment or cite specific errors by the district court.
Because Kohl fails to identify any factual or legal error in the
district court's opinion, he has failed to brief this issue for
appeal adequately. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); Brinkman v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987);
Al-Ra'id, 69 F.3d at 31.
Kohl also argues that the district court erred in finding
that his complaint did not satisfy the "heightened pleading"
requirement. This argument is moot as the district court
specifically concluded that his affidavit satisfied this
requirement.
This appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is
DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.