IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10153
Summary Calendar
MARILYN SCOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES; BARRY L. MACHA, District
Attorney; MONTEREY CARE CENTER; SUSAN CRUME, Administrator;
MACK PAINTER, Social Worker; RAYMOND PERRY, Police Officer;
JAMES HODGES, Police Officer; DENVER MANOR; BARBARA LANE,
Administrator; KIM DESHAE, Director of Nursing; REBECCA
RUDDY; DEBBIE BEVINS; JANNA PERRY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:01-CV-96
--------------------
October 21, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marilyn Scott appeals the district court’s dismissal of her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), (b)(6). Scott
argues that the district court erred in dismissing her claims
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10153
-2-
because the defendants conspired to violate her Fourteenth
Amendment right to equal protection under the law and her Fifth
Amendment rights to due process and the guarantee of personal
liberty. We have reviewed de novo the district court’s judgment,
the record, and the briefs and find no error in the district
court’s judgment dismissing Scott’s claims against the defendants
on these grounds.
To the extent that Scott challenges the district court’s
other bases for dismissal, she fails to provide any cogent
factual or legal argument concerning whether the district court
erred in determining that her claims were barred by Eleventh
Amendment immunity, absolute immunity for witnesses, and
prosecutorial immunity. Similarly, Scott failed to identify any
error in the district court’s order denying her motions for
default judgment and to strike the state court motion in limine.
Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even
pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). When
an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s
analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed
that judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
In their briefs, Monterey Care Center, Susan Crume, Mack
Painter, Janna Perry, Denver Manor Nursing Home, Barbara Lane,
No. 02-10153
-3-
and Kim Deshae request that attorneys’ fees and costs be awarded
to them. To the extent that these defendants seek attorneys’
fees and costs as a measure of damages because Scott’s appeal is
frivolous, such a request must be made by a separately filed
motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 38. As the requests for costs and
fees are not properly made, the requests are DENIED.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.