IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30717
Conference Calendar
RUSSELL M. FRAISE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL KELLY, Executive Director of Housing Authority of New
Orleans (HANO); RONALD MASON, Executive Monitor of the Housing
Authority of New Orleans (HANO); ANDREW CUOMO, Secretary of HUD,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-1863-C
--------------------
June 16, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Russell M. Fraise, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his civil rights complaint against two officials of the Housing
Authority of New Orleans (HANO) and the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).
The district court dismissed Fraise’s complaint against the
Secretary of HUD without prejudice based on Fraise’s failure to
raise any allegations particular to HUD. The court subsequently
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-30717
-2-
dismissed the remaining HANO defendants, concluding that Fraise
had no constitutionally protected right to a specific contract
with HANO.
Fraise argues that the district court erred in dismissing
his claim without the introduction of any evidence and he asks
whether a verifiable violation of law can be overlooked by the
court in making a determination to dismiss. He argues that the
cases cited by HANO had no bearing on the charges filed, that the
trial court erred in allowing HANO to avoid discovery, and he
challenges the denial of his request for appointed counsel.
Fraise’s brief contains no record citations and no citations
to legal authorities. Although this court liberally construes
the briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief
the issues and comply with the standards of Rule 28 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d
523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). The Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure require the parties to provide references to the page
number of the record to support statements of fact. Fed. R. App.
P. 28(a)(7) and (9)(A); 5TH CIR. R. 28.2.3. Rule 28(a)(9)(A)
also requires the argument to contain citations to the
authorities relied on. Fraise’s brief contains no record
citations, no citation to relevant legal authority, and no
identification of any error in the district court’s legal
analysis that his allegations, accepted as true, did not state a
due process claim. Fraise has not adequately briefed any
argument relating to the district court’s reasons for dismissal.
Failure by the appellant to identify any error in the district
No. 99-30717
-3-
court's analysis or application to the facts of the case is the
same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment.
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Fraise’s appeal is inadequately briefed, and we thus DISMISS
the appeal as frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.