IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-10054
Summary Calendar
LAWRENCE D. KENEMORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
ET AL.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:94 CV 1869 H)
( August 31, 1995 )
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lawrence D. Kenemore, Jr., an habitual pro se litigant,
appeals the district court's dismissal of his suit against the
Department of Labor and several of its officers. We affirm.
First, Kenemore argues that the district court erred in
failing to recognize that the Department of Labor can be "sued as
a person." Yet sovereign immunity shields the Department of Labor
*
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should not be published.
and all other United States "departments" from damages actions
absent a waiver. Williamson v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 815 F.2d 368,
373 (5th Cir. 1987). Kenemore cites no such waiver here.
Second, he argues that the district court incorrectly held
that "government servants cannot be sued in their individual
capacity." The district court did not hold this. Rather, it
implicitly held that the individual defendants here were entitled
to qualified immunity because Kenemore's conclusory allegations did
not suffice to state a violation of any clearly established
statutory or constitutional right. See Mitchell v. Forsythe, 472
U.S. 511 (1985). Having reviewed Kenemore's complaint, we agree.
Third, Kenemore complains that the district court failed to
recognize the allegations of constitutional violations that he
stated in his complaint. We agree with the district court that
Kenemore's complaint "fails to allege anything more than conclusory
facts and legal conclusions." The gist of his complaint is that
defendants lacked jurisdiction to subpoena or question him. This
is a legal conclusion unsupported by any factual allegations in his
complaint.
Finally, Kenemore takes issue with the district court's
characterization of his action as a Bivens action. Because
Kenemore fails to brief this issue, which he raises in a terse
sentence, we will not consider it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
2