UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-50110
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
BOBBY CASKEY, ET AL.,
Defendant-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(A 94 CA 603)
( March 28, 1995)
Before KING, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
BACKGROUND
Texas state prisoner William Robert Parker filed a pro se, in
forma pauperis (IFP) complaint against Bobby and Boyd Caskey, the
parents of his murder victim; state court Judge Benny Boles; the
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles; and various members of the
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, alleging that the various
defendants conspired to deprive him of his civil rights during
parole proceedings. The magistrate judge ordered Parker to file a
more definite statement, and Parker responded by filing a lengthy
pleading which included newspaper references regarding the Caskeys
contacts with the Board of Pardons and Paroles; correspondence from
various state officials; lists of witnesses and the subject matter
of their intended testimony; and pleadings from prior state and
federal proceedings. The magistrate judge had the pleadings
stricken from the record because Parker failed to comply with the
local rule requiring all pleadings to be filed in duplicate.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint as
frivolous because the claims against the Caskeys were frivolous and
malicious; against Judge Boles and the members of the Board of
Pardons and Parole because they are absolutely immune; and against
the Board of Pardons and Paroles because it was not a "person"
within the meaning of § 1983. The district court, after
considering the stricken pleadings, adopted the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation and dismissed the complaint as frivolous.
On appeal, Parker argues the merits of his underlying claim
that the various defendants conspired to deny him parole, see
Appellant's Brief, 3-5, but does not address the basis of the
district court's dismissal. Issues not raised or briefed on appeal
are considered abandoned. Evans v. City of Marlin, Tex., 986 F.2d
104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, this court will dismiss
2
the entire appeal as frivolous. See Lavergne v. Harris County
Central Jail, No. 94-20112 (5th Cir. Sept. 20, 1994) (unpublished;
copy attached).
Parker also argues that the district court prematurely
dismissed his complaint without a Spears hearing, but he does not
indicate how he would have expanded upon the allegations in his
complaint. A district court is not required to conduct a Spears
hearing before dismissing an IFP complaint as frivolous. Green v.
McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986). A Spears hearing is
"in the nature of a motion for a more definite statement." Wesson
v. Oglesby, 910 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1990). Instead of
conducting a Spears hearing, Parker was given an opportunity to
file a more definite statement. Parker cannot demonstrate any
error.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
wjl\opin\95-50110.opn
hrd 3