Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60413/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60413

Summary Calendar

 

LOUIS JAMES CLAY, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MON CREE ALLEN; MARY R. THOMPSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:00-CV-39-BrS

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis James Clay, Jr., Mississippi Inmate No. 08452,

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of defendant Mon Cree Allen, and the district court’s

dismissal without prejudice of his claims against Mary R. Thompson

for lack of service.

 Case: 03-60413 Document: 0051241356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2004
2

Clay does not address the merits of the district court’s

grant of summary judgment in either his initial or reply brief.

When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district

court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not

appealed that judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Clay argues that the district court erred in dismissing

his complaint against the court reporter, Thompson, pursuant to

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), for failure to provide a valid address for

service. This court reviews a dismissal for failure to effect

timely service of process for an abuse of discretion. Lindsey v.

United States R.R. Retirement Bd., 101 F.3d 444, 445 (5th Cir.

1996). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Rochon v. Dawson,

828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff may not remain

silent but must attempt to remedy any apparent service defects).

Clay argues that the district court erred by denying his

requests for appointment of counsel. The court is not required to

appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff raising a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 claim in the absence of “exceptional circumstances.” Ulmer

v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Based upon our

review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion because Clay has not shown such exceptional

circumstances are present in this case.

 Case: 03-60413 Document: 0051241356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2004
3

Clay also states that he wishes to “resubmit” his motion

to recuse District Court Judge David Bramlette. Clay also moved

for recusal of Judge Bramlette during a prior appeal of this case.

See Clay v. Allen, 242 F.3d 679, 680-81 (5th Cir. 2001). We

refused to consider the argument because it was raised for the

first time on appeal. See id. (citing United States v. Sanford,

157 F.3d 987, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1988)). On remand, Clay did not

reurge his recusal motion in the district court, and we again

decline to consider the argument.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-60413 Document: 0051241356 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/20/2004