IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40234
Conference Calendar
__________________
JAMES HENRY JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WALTER STANDLEY, Deputy Sheriff,
Houston County Sheriff Dep't,
Crockett, Texas, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:94-CV-119
- - - - - - - - - -
June 28, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), this court requires
arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Claims not
adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned
on appeal. Id. at 224-25.
*
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that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-40234
-2-
Johnson's brief ignores the district court's determination
that his claims based on the "insufficiency" of his state-court
indictment and for malicious prosecution were noncognizable under
Heck, and his claims for false imprisonment and denial of access
to the courts were barred by the appropriate statute of
limitations. Johnson merely asserts "that he has enough proof to
burst this case wide open," and complains of the court's
"premature" dismissal of his action. Instead of coherent
argument, his brief strings together a series of unsupported
assertions. However, presentation of an issue on appeal requires
that the issue be argued, not merely stated. Yohey, 985 F.2d at
224-25; Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th
Cir. 1988). Thus, Johnson has indicated no basis upon which to
determine that the instant dismissal for frivolousness was an
abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Booker v. Koonce,
2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). Johnson's brief is wholly
without merit, rendering the appeal frivolous. See Coghlan v.
Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988). This appeal is
dismissed as such. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Johnson is warned that abusing the right to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal in the future will result in sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED.