United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 2, 2004
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10182
Summary Calendar
ADAM R. MILLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.;
THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA;
AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, INC.;
TEXAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:02-CV-553-P)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adam R. Miller appeals, pro se, the dismissal of his
complaint, which claims the wrongful denial of workers’
compensation benefits. The action was removed to federal court
after Miller amended his complaint in state court, claiming the
defendants violated the Constitution and federal laws. The
district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b); declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims; and dismissed them without
prejudice.
Contrary to Miller’s contention, the record reflects: the
procedures used by the district court were fair; and Miller was
afforded ample opportunity to state his best case. See Bazrowx v.
Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 865
(1998).
With one exception, Miller’s conclusional appellate
contentions do not explain how the district court erred. Pro se
briefs are afforded liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); nevertheless, pro se litigants must brief
contentions in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). With the exception of Miller’s bad-
faith claim against the workers’ compensation insurer, which arises
under state law, the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of
Miller’s federal claims is AFFIRMED.
Concerning that bad-faith claim, the district court may have
erred in determining that a Texas workers’ compensation claimant
cannot maintain such a claim. See, e.g., American Motorists Ins.
Co. v. Fodge, 63 S.W.3d 801, 802 (Tex. 2001). Because this claim
sounded in state tort law only, however, it should have been
dismissed without prejudice, as were Miller’s other state law
claims. Accordingly, that part of the judgment dismissing this
2
claim with prejudice is VACATED and this case is REMANDED, so that
judgment may be corrected to reflect that the bad-faith claim is
dismissed without prejudice.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; AND REMANDED
3