United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 14, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41684
Summary Calendar
LORINE DANIELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BASF CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. G-02-CV0-683
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Lorine Daniels, pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of her Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.
We affirm.
Daniels filed suit against her employer, BASF Corporation
(“BASF”), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. BASF filed a motion for summary
judgment to which Daniels’s counsel failed to respond.
Accordingly, the district court granted BASF’s motion and dismissed
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
the case on May 16, 2003.1 On September 15, 2003, Daniels filed a
pro se motion for reconsideration, which the district court
properly treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.
In re Stangel, 68 F.3d 857, 859 (5th Cir. 1995) (treating motion
filed more then ten days post-judgment as Rule 60(b) motion). The
district court denied the motion, after again considering the
merits of Daniels’s claims, on November 17, 2003. Daniels timely
filed her notice of appeal from the denial of her motion for
reconsideration.2
Daniels’s brief to this court is devoid of legal argument
and legal authority. In place of a legal argument, Daniels simply
states, “I do not understand this part; therefore, I do not have
any information at this time.” It is well-settled in this circuit
that arguments not briefed on appeal are waived. United States v.
Thibodeaux, 211 F.3d 910, 912 (5th Cir. 2000). Daniels’s pro se
status cannot excuse her complete failure to provide this court
with a legal argument. See Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.3d 1509, 1512
(noting that self-representation does not excuse a party’s
noncompliance with the relevant procedural and substantive rules).
1
BASF notes that the district judge considered the merits of Daniels’s
claim when ruling on the unopposed motion for summary judgment, although he was
not required to do so. See S.D. TEX. LOC. R. 7.4.
2
Daniels’s December 12, 2003 notice of appeal refers only to the
court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration. Even if Daniels intended to
appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in BASF’s favor, her notice
of appeal was filed well after the thirty-day deadline. See FED. R. APP. P.
4(a)(1)(A).
2
(In any event, an independent review of the district court’s denial
of Daniels’s Rule 60(b) motion reveals no reversible error.)
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3