IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-21120
Summary Calendar
RUDOLFO B. MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; G. ADAMS;
R. SEWARD; C. LUERAR, sued in their individual and
official capacities
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-3757
--------------------
January 31, 2003
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rudolfo B. Martinez, Texas prisoner no. 340699, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to comply with court orders to amend his complaint.
Martinez alleged cruel and unusual punishment in the form of
deprivation of adequate medical care.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-21120
-2-
The district court properly dismissed some of the original
named defendants with prejudice on grounds of untimeliness. The
remaining defendants were properly dismissed with prejudice for
Martinez’s failure to allege a cause of action against them in
their supervisory capacity. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298,
303 (5th Cir. 1987).
Martinez arguably has waived, by lack of briefing, appeal of
the dismissal for failure to comply with court orders to amend
the complaint to name specific individuals who may have deprived
him of his right to adequate medical care by denying him a proper
leg brace. See United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 n.2
(5th Cir. 2002) (failure to provide legal or factual analysis of
issue results in its waiver). In any event, the district court
did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his complaint without
prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s two orders. See
McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988);
McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 1988).
Moreover, Martinez’s failure to name specific defendants in
compliance with the court’s order assured that he did not state a
cause of action against any defendant. The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
Martinez has moved for appointment of counsel, production of
records and transcripts that appear already to have been produced
as the record on appeal, and for leave to proceed in forma
No. 02-21120
-3-
pauperis, which status has already been granted by the district
court. These motions are DENIED.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; ALL MOTIONS DENIED.