Case: 11-20608 Document: 00511752263 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 8, 2012
No. 11-20608
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
SABINA MUHAMMED,
Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
LONE STAR COLLEGE SYSTEM,
Defendant–Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CV-2381
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff–Appellant Sabina Muhammed, a Pakistani Muslim, alleges that
she was the victim of discrimination by Defendant–Appellee Lone Star College
System (the “College”). Muhammed complains that Lone Star College
improperly accused her of breach of computer security in violation of Texas
Penal Code § 33.02; she was found guilty of those charges because of false
testimony by College employees; and that College employees made
inflammatory, degrading, and racial statements concerning her nationality, and
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-20608 Document: 00511752263 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2012
No. 11-20608
her religious beliefs. The district court dismissed Muhammed’s claims pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Muhammed timely appealed.
Although we “liberally construe” the filings of pro se litigants and “apply
less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented
by counsel,” pro se appellants must still comply with the principles of appellate
procedure. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
The appellant’s brief must contain an argument, which in turn must contain his
“contentions and the reasons 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.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); see
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). General arguments without
citations to any error are insufficient to preserve issues for appeal. See
Brinkmann v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Muhammed’s brief purports to assert three issues for review by this Court:
(1) “violations of civil rights and the 14th Amendment,” (2) “wrongful dismissal
of case from US District Court judge,” and (3) “perjury and forgery of employees.”
Her arguments on these issues are completely devoid of record citations or
specific indications as to how the district court erred; it merely asserts that she
was harmed by the College’s actions and that the dismissal was incorrect.
“Aside from the implication raised by its existence, [appellant’s] brief does not
argue that the district court erred in any way.” Grant, 59 F.3d at 525. Such a
filing is “in practical effect . . . the same as if [s]he had not appealed” at all.
Brinkman v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, we DISMISS Muhammed’s appeal for want of prosecution.1
1
“In all instances of failure to prosecute an appeal to hearing as required, the court
may take such other action as it deems appropriate.” 5TH CIR. R. 42.3.3. “[W]hen appellant
fails . . . to comply with the rules of the court, the clerk must dismiss the appeal for want of
prosecution.” 5TH CIR. R. 42.3.2.
2