United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 12, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60739
Summary Calendar
RICK SPRADLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT JOHNSON, Commissioner, Individually and Officially;
DAVID TURNER, Superintendent, Individually and Official Capacity;
DON LEWIS, Lieutenant, Individually and Official Capacity,
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:00-CV-324-Gu
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rick Spradlin appeals from a judgment dismissing his civil
rights complaint after a trial and jury verdict in favor of the
sole remaining defendant. Spradlin contended that the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”)and various supervisory officials
within the MDOC violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to
protect him from assaults from gang members.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60739
-2-
Spradlin argues that the district court committed error in
pre-trial proceedings when it dismissed Commissioner Robert Johnson
and Superintendent David Turner. The district court screened the
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) and conducted a hearing
pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), prior
to dismissing Johnson and Turner. Spradlin testified at the Spears
hearing that he intended to sue both Johnson and Turner in their
supervisory capacity. Spradlin’s Spears hearing testimony does not
indicate that Johnson and Turner were notified that Spradlin was
incarcerated under conditions imposing actual risk of substantial
impending harm and consciously and culpably refused to take steps
to prevent it from occurring. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530,
533 (5th Cir. 1995). Spradlin’s appellate argument that he
notified Johnson and Turner of his concerns is unpersuasive. Thus,
the district court did not err when it dismissed Johnson and
Turner.
Spradlin also argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support the jury verdict. Spradlin failed to move for judgment as
a matter of law in the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 50(a). This issue is therefore reviewed only to
determine if any evidence exists to support the jury verdict; if
there is such evidence, the verdict will be upheld. See United
States ex. rel. Wallace v. Flintco Inc., 143 F.3d 955, 962-63 (5th
Cir. 1998). Evidence adduced at trial, including the trial
testimony of the defendant and the prison warden, supports the
No. 02-60739
-3-
jury’s determination that Spradlin failed to prove his failure to
protect claim.
Spradlin has failed to adequately brief any other issue.
Although this court applies less stringent standards to parties
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and
liberally construes briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must
still 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). FED. R. APP. P. 28(A)(9) requires that the brief contain an
argument, with “contentions and the reason for them, with citations
to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies” and “for each issue, a concise statement of the applicable
standard of review.” See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993). Spradlin’s brief lists issues for appellate review
other than the district court’s dismissal of Johnson and Turner and
his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, but Spradlin
fails to provide record citations, legal authority, and a coherent
argument for each issue. Therefore, he has abandoned these issues
by failing to brief them adequately.
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.