IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50465
Summary Calendar
ARTHUR M FLORES
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant
v.
BEXAR COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER; RALPH LOPEZ, Sheriff;
ARMANDO ORTIZ; PATRICK SKILLMAN; MICHAEL VALDEZ
Defendants - Counter Claimants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-01-CV-148-EP
--------------------
January 3, 2003
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arthur M. Flores, Texas prisoner # 1038426, appeals the
district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint in which he alleged that the defendants' practice of
housing known violent inmates along with inmates in protective
custody proximately caused him to be assaulted. Flores raises
three issues on appeal. He first argues that the district court
erred in denying him discovery. Based on our review of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50465
-2-
record, we conclude that Flores has failed to show that the
district court abused its discretion in its discovery rulings.
See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th
Cir. 2000); Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir.
1990).
Flores next argues that the district court erred by denying
his motions for the appointment of counsel. There is no
automatic right to counsel in civil rights cases absent
exceptional circumstances. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209,
212 (5th Cir. 1982). Flores primarily argues that exceptional
circumstances exist because he is visually impaired as a result
of the assault on him. However, Flores's case does not present
novel or complex legal or factual questions, and he has been able
to conduct his litigation in the district court despite his
impairment, having filed numerous pleadings and motions. We
conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in denying
Flores's motions for counsel. See id. at 213; Jackson v. Dallas
Police Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).
Finally, Flores argues that the district court erred by
dismissing his complaint. In his appellate brief, Flores asserts
only the general legal standards for summary judgment and for
dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) without presenting any
argument that the district court erred in determining that his
claims were barred by qualified immunity. Failure of an
appellant to identify any error in the district court's analysis
No. 02-50465
-3-
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).
Because Flores does not address the basis of the district court's
dismissal, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.