Case ID: f-appx_364/html/0071-01.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

Kelvin WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Doug WELBORN, Clerk of Court, 19th JDC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-30825
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 1, 2010.
    Kelvin Wells, Baton Rouge, LA, pro se.
    Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Kelvin Wells, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims. Wells alleged that the appellee, a Louisiana clerk of court, improperly processed his various petitions for relief. The district court dismissed Wells’s claims with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), determining that Wells failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In his briefing to this court, Wells fails to identify any error in the district court’s dismissal of his claims. Instead Wells merely reiterates factual allegations and generalized statements of the law. “Although we liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se ..., pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards of Rule 28.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). See also Fed. R.App. P. 28 (requiring an appellant’s brief to contain, among other things, a statement of the issues and an argument); United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.1994) (“[PJro se litigants, like all other parties, must abide by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.”).

Because Wells fails to properly argue or present issues in his appellate brief, we consider those issues to be abandoned. United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir.1992); Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir.1988) (“[A]rguments must be briefed to be preserved.”). Because Wells has abandoned all issues on appeal, Wells’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 233 (5th Cir.2002). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cm. R. 42.2. DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5tu Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5tii Cir R. 47.5.4.