Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11082/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11082-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Alexander Dubose
Appellant
Gilbert Gomez
Appellee
NFN Alonzo
Appellee
NFN Berterson
Appellee
Betterton Steven
Appellee
Roberto Tarin
Appellee
Oliver Vasquez
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11082

Summary Calendar

ROBERT ALEXANDER DUBOSE,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

GILBERT GOMEZ, Correctional Officer II, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

ROBERTO TARIN, Lieutenant, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

OLIVER VASQUEZ, Sergeant, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

NFN ALONZO, Sergeant, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

NFN BERTERSON, Correctional Officer, 

 Smith Unit Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Individual Capacity;

BETTERTON STEVEN,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CV-193

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11082 Document: 00513801151 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2016
No. 15-11082

2

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert DuBose, Texas prisoner # 01880528, sued five correctional officers alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising from a use of force. The district 

court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the basis of qualified 

immunity and the absence of any genuine issue of material fact that any defendant had violated DuBose’s Eighth Amendment rights. DuBose appeals.

We review a summary judgment de novo. See, e.g., Mason v. Lafayette 

City-Parish Consol. Gov’t, 806 F.3d 268, 274 (5th Cir. 2015). To preserve an 

issue for review, the appellant must adequately brief it and “engage the issue 

on the basis of binding precedent.” See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 

433, 446–47 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2010); see also FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). DuBose’s 

perfunctory counseled brief is not entitled to liberal construction, see Beasley 

v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986), and it fails to meet this court’s 

standards for appellate briefing and fails properly to raise any issue for appeal. 

See Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 446–47.

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.

 Case: 15-11082 Document: 00513801151 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2016