IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60181
Conference Calendar
__________________
BILLY RAY FORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BILLY MCGEE and FORREST
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEP'T,
Defendants-Appellees.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BILLY RAY FORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD MCKENZIE, Judge,
and FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendants-Appellees.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BILLY RAY FORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS and RAY HINTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BILLY RAY FORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GLEN WHITE,
Defendant-Appellee.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BILLY RAY FORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBIN WHITE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 95-60181
-2-
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:94-cv-332-PS; 2:94-cv-333-PS;
2:94-cv-334-PS; 2:94-cv-335-PS; 2:93-cv-336-PS
- - - - - - - - - -
June 30, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bill Ray Ford filed five civil rights complaints, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, against various defendants alleging violations of his
civil rights arising from the revocation of his probation. The
district court consolidated the complaints and dismissed them as
frivolous. The district court dismissed the claims against two
defendants, Judge Richard McKenzie and Forrest County district
attorney Glenn White, based on absolute immunity, and the
remaining defendants as premature under Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.
Ct. 2364 (1994). On appeal Ford argues the merits of his
underlying claim, but fails to challenge the basis of the
dismissal. Issues not raised or briefed are considered
abandoned. Evans v. City of Marlin, Tex., 986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1
(5th Cir. 1993).
The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
*
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that this opinion should not be published.