IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10397
Conference Calendar
__________________
DEBRA LYNN LEBOURNEY PATMORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BEN WHITEMAN, JR., Sheriff;
DAVIS, Sergeant, Jail Administrator;
ALICE YOUNGBLOOD, Sergeant, Parker
County, TX
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth
USDC No. 4:94CV00531
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Debra Lynn Lebourney Patmore, a former inmate of the Parker
County Jail, filed a pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) civil
rights complaint alleging the denial of medical care. The
district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-10397
-2-
Patmore filed in the district court a motion requesting
leave to appeal out-of-time. She also filed a notice of appeal
in this court. This court remanded the case to the district
court for a determination whether Patmore had deposited her
notice of appeal in the prison system on or before the last day
for filing. This court also directed the district court to make
a final ruling on Patmore's motion for leave to appeal out-of-
time.
The district court's subsequent determination that Patmore's
notice of appeal was not timely filed, and its denial of
Patmore's motion for leave to appeal out-of-time, are the subject
of the instant appeal. However, Patmore neither argues nor
refers to the issues before this court in her appellate brief.
Rather, Patmore re-argues the merits of her civil rights
complaint, impliedly suggesting that the district court erred by
dismissing the complaint. Patmore's appeal of the district
court's dismissal of her complaint was dismissed for failure to
file a brief.
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 brief
the issues and reasonably comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a).
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Issues not
briefed are deemed abandoned. Evans v. City of Marlin, Tex., 986
F.2d 104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Patmore does not
brief the only issues before the court, they are deemed abandoned
No. 95-10397
-3-
and we will not address them. See id. The appeal is DISMISSED.
See Grant, 59 F.3d at 525; 5th Cir. R. 42.3.2.