Case: 11-40839 Document: 00511766097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 23, 2012
No. 11-40839
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
LOUIS CHARLES HAMILTON, II,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
WILLIE M. ZANDERS, Attorney at Law; WALTER A. DENNIS; ROSEMARY
DENNIS,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:11-CV-5
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court dismissed this action sua sponte as malicious. Because
Mr. Hamilton has failed to present a nonfrivolous issue regarding the district
court’s dismissal, we DISMISS his appeal as frivolous.1 Alternatively, we
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Case: 11-40839 Document: 00511766097 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2012
No. 11-40839
DISMISS the appeal because of the complete noncompliance of Mr. Hamilton’s
brief with Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.2
2
See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Although we
liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the
issues and reasonably comply with the standards of Rule 28.” (footnote omitted)).
2