Case ID: f-appx_476/html/0298-01.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

Audrey Denise ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Minnie COLEMAN, Lieutenant; Warden Kevin Jackson, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-60197
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 22, 2012.
    
      Audrey Denise Robertson, Cleveland, MS, pro se.
    Charles Baron Irvin, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se, Audrey Denise Robertson, Mississippi prisoner # K9439, appeals the dismissal of her complaint against prison officials for harassment. After Robertson and the Government consented to proceeding before the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the magistrate judge determined that Robertson failed to exhaust administrative remedies and to allege a constitutional violation. The magistrate judge dismissed her suit as frivolous.

Robertson’s brief describes the alleged harassment, notes that the district court did not call certain witnesses to testify, and asserts that she did not receive the defendants’ motion to dismiss and was not instructed to answer it. She does not discuss whether she exhausted her claims or whether the defendants’ actions amounted to a constitutional violation. She also fails to cite to the district court record.

The appellant’s brief must contain her “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which [she] relies.” Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, arguments must be briefed sufficiently to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Robertson’s failure to address the magistrate judge’s grounds for dismissing her claims, “without even the slightest identification of any error in [the district court’s] legal analysis or its application to [her] suit ..., is the same as if [s]he had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See id.; 5th Cm. R. 42.2.

Both the dismissal of Robertson’s suit in the district court and the dismissal of this appeal count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Ham-mons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Robertson is WARNED that, once she accumulates three strikes, she may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while she is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless she is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 
      
       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.