Case: 13-40603 Document: 00512493385 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-40603 January 8, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
DARRELL WAYNE HUGHES,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, CHEROKEE COUNTY SHERIFF; CHARLES
HOLCOMB; JUDGE MORRIS W. HASSELL; ATTORNEY JAMES
PHOENIX,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:13-CV-208
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Darrell Wayne Hughes,
Texas prisoner # 960992, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint, in which he argued that the defendants conspired against
him by denying him his right to petition the government for redress of
grievances through fraud, by organizing a crime against him, by denying him
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-40603 Document: 00512493385 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2014
No. 13-40603
access to legal materials, and by fabricating the criminal charges against him
in April 1983. He also argued ineffective assistance of counsel. The district
court dismissed Hughes’s claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994), as frivolous, and as barred by the statute of limitations.
In his appellate brief, Hughes reurges the merits of his claims but fails
to address the district court’s detailed analysis and dismissal of his claims.
When an appellant, like Hughes, fails to identify any error in the district
court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue.
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th
Cir. 1987). Hughes’s claims are therefore deemed abandoned. See Hughes v.
Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-
25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Hughes also argues for the first time that he has been subjected to cruel
and unusual punishment. Because we do not generally consider claims raised
for the first time on appeal, we will not address this claim. See Leverette v.
Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2