Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0335-01.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

Robert K. HUDNALL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. William DETHLEFS, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El Paso; Ryan C. Holmes, Associate Dean of Students, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El Paso; Catie McCorry-Andelis, Associate Vice-President and Dean of Students for University of Texas at El Paso; Gary Edens, Vice-President for Student Affairs for University of Texas at El Paso; Maria Contreras, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El Paso; John C. Loya, Chief Administrator Officer for School of Liberal Arts, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El Paso; Maria Michel, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El Paso; Yolanda Leyva, Doctor of Philosophy, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El Paso; Does 1-100; University of Texas at El Paso; Jeffrey Sheppard, Doctor of Philosophy, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El Paso, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-50229
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 15, 2014.
    Robert K. Hudnall, El Paso, TX, pro se.
    Erika M. Kane, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Esteban San Miguel Soto, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The court has carefully considered this appeal, but our consideration is marred by insufficient and conclusory briefing. Appellant has waived his claims on appeal by failing to adequately explain them and by failing to furnish citations to the record. F.R.A.P. 28(a)(8); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993) (citations to record are necessary; pro se appellants must brief arguments correctly to preserve them); Moore v. FDIC, 993 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir.1993). Most of his arguments do not challenge the grounds for the district court’s dismissal of each of his claims. Nevertheless, we find no reversible error of fact or law by the district court and affirm for substantially the reasons expressed in that Court’s conscientious and well-reasoned opinion.

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.