IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-11360
Conference Calendar
JAMES D. BOSWELL, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated;
VANESSA LACE BOSWELL, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated;
SHAUNA MROSKI, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY,
individual members (in their official capacities only);
GEORGE BUSH, Governor, individual and official capacity;
DANIEL JAMES, Major, Adjutant General of Texas;
LOUIS CALDERA, Secretary of the Army, National Guard
Bureau Agency,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CV-1526-Y
--------------------
June 13, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James D. Boswell, Vanessa Boswell, and Shauna Mroski
(“Appellants”) appeal the dismissal of their civil complaint. We
review de novo a dismissal based on res judicata. Schmueser v.
Burkburnett Bank, 937 F.2d 1025, 1031 (5th Cir. 1991).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-11360
-2-
Although we afford a liberal construction to pro se filings,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), pro se appellants are
required to brief the issues and reasonably comply with the
requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d
523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225
(5th Cir. 1993). When an appellant does not identify error in
the district court’s analysis, it is as if the appellant had not
appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Because the Appellants do not argue that it was error for
the district court to have used res judicata as a basis for
dismissing their complaint, the issue is deemed abandoned by
them. Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. We do not consider the
Appellants’ argument raised for the first time in their reply
brief. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994
(scope of reply brief is limited, and appellant abandons all
issues not raised and argued in initial brief on appeal);
Knighten v. Commissioner, 702 F.2d 59, 60 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1983)
(issue may not be raised for first time in reply brief, even by a
pro se appellant). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.