Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0878-01.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

James Bernard TRUMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. James LEBLANC; Nathan Cain; Robbie Berube; Lieutenant Colonel Villamarette; Timothy F. Averill; Wayne Millus; Doug Welborn; Nicole Robinson; Debra A. Rutledge; Janice G. Clark, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 16-30488 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed June 19, 2017
    
      James Bernard Truman, Pro Se
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

James Bernard Truman, Louisiana prisoner # 291926, appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims relating to the Avoyelles Parish Correctional Center for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the dismissal without prejudice of his claims relating to the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola and the 19th Judicial District Court based on improper venue. Truman’s claims regarding retaliation, denial of due process during his prison disciplinary proceeding, denial of his right of access to the courts, and the district court’s venue determination were either not briefed at all or not adequately briefed. Thus, they are deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Truman has failed to show that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). His appeal is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.