Case ID: f-appx_176/html/0630-01.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

FIRST FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Dean FORTENBERRY; et al, Defendants; Eddie Dean Fortenberry, Defendant-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-60513.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 20, 2006.
    Robert Alan Byrd, Byrd & Wiser, Biloxi, MS, William C. Callender, Columbia, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Eddie Dean Fortenberry, Foxworth, MS, pro se.
    John Arthur Schumann, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eddie Dean Fortenberry (“Fortenberry”) appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for pre-judgment interest. Having carefully reviewed the record and briefs, we affirm the district court’s judgment because, although Fortenberry raised five points of error in her notice of appeal, she did not substantively address any of these issues in her appellate brief, provide us with any authority in support of her position, or direct us to any pertinent portions of the record. Generally, issues not briefed are deemed to be abandoned on appeal, even in the case of a pro se litigant like Fortenberry.

Fortenberry’s only argument on appeal is that we should reverse the district court’s judgment because First Federal Bank for Savings’s (“First Federal”) attorney obtained it by committing a fraud on that court. She has not cited to any evidence in support of her claim and we have found none in the record. We thus AFFIRM the district court’s judgment denying Fortenberry pre-judgment interest. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . See, e.g., Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 n. 6 (5th Cir.2005) ("Although pro se briefs are to be liberally construed, pro se litigants have no general immunity from the rule that issues and arguments not briefed on appeal are abandoned.”) (internal citation omitted); Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir.1988) (same); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (stating that appellant's brief must contain "appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”).