Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0386-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Benedict EMESOWUM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Adam ZELDES; John Doe; City of San Antonio; Grant Ruedemann, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 16-50906 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed September 15, 2017
    Benedict Emesowum, Pro Se
    
      Nathan Mark Ralls, Hoblit Darling Ralls Hernandez & Hudlow, L.L.P., San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Adam Zeldes, John Doe, Grant Ruedemann
    Nathan Mark Ralls, Hoblit Darling Ralls Hernandez & Hudlow, L.L.P., San Antonio, TX, Michael David Siemer, Attorney, City Attorney’s Office for the City of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee City of San Antonio
    Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Benedict Emesowum appeals the dismissal without an evidentiary hearing of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit arising from his arrest at a bus terminal and claiming that the defendants violated his constitutional rights in several regards. He does not challenge the district court’s several motion rulings contained in the order at issue and has, therefore, abandoned any such challenges. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8).

We review the dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, applying the standard used to review a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2003). Emesowum, whose brief consists of conclusory assertions and is entirely devoid of record citations, fails to show that the district court erred. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.