United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT May 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10266
Summary Calendar
JERRY LEWIS DEDRICK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:04-CV-940-A)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Lewis Dedrick, federal inmate # 27140-180, appeals, pro
se, the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, in which
he claimed: he was denied due process during prison disciplinary
proceedings; prison officials retaliated against him; and he
received an improper inmate classification. He sought monetary
damages and restoration of good time credits.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Dedrick’s petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Dedrick does not provide facts or
assertions challenging the reason for the dismissal.
We apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se
than to parties represented by counsel, and we liberally construe
the briefs of pro se litigants. Nevertheless, pro se parties must
still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements
of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 (appellate brief
requirements). Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).
By failing to challenge the district court’s reason for dismissing
his § 2241 petition, Dedrick has abandoned the issue on appeal.
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
Dedrick claims the district court erred by denying his motion
to reinstate his petition, in which he sought production of
documents concerning his administrative proceedings. Dedrick has
not identified any documents he could have obtained to show the
district court erred in dismissing his petition for failure to
exhaust. The district court did not err in denying the motion to
reinstate.
AFFIRMED.
2