Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10485/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Baten Intermediate Sanction Facility
Appellee
Collin County Detention Facility
Appellee
Fort Worth Transitional Centers
Appellee
Marc DeWayne Howell
Appellant
Tarrant County Jail
Appellee
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10485

Summary Calendar

MARC DEWAYNE HOWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COLLIN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; BATEN INTERMEDIATE SANCTION FACILITY; 

FORT WORTH TRANSITIONAL CENTERS; TARRANT COUNTY JAIL,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-658

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marc DeWayne Howell, a former Texas prisoner, filed in the district 

court a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint asserting wrongful 

imprisonment, harassment, and medical malpractice. He named as 

defendants Collin County Detention Facility, the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice, Baten Intermediate Sanction Facility, Fort Worth 

* 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

FILED

May 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10485 Document: 00513029394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2015
No. 14-10485

Transitional Centers, and Tarrant County Jail. The district court dismissed a 

portion of Howell’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to 

state a claim. The district court dismissed the remaining portion of Howell’s 

complaint due to his failure to timely effect service of process under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The district court also denied as futile Howell’s 

motions to amend his complaint. Howell timely appealed the district court’s 

order dismissing his § 1983 complaint and denying his motions to amend. 

Although Howell arguably identifies his § 1983 claims before this court, 

he fails to challenge the district court’s reasons for granting the defendants’ 

motion to dismiss his § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. Nor does he address or otherwise challenge the 

district court’s dismissal for failure to timely effect service of process, or the 

district court’s denial of his motions to amend. 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 issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy 

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are 

afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even 

pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. 

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Howell has abandoned any 

challenge to the district court’s determination that his § 1983 action should be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 

and for failure to timely effect service of process. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 

748. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Additionally, Howell’s 

motions to amend his complaint on appeal and his motion to amend the amount 

of relief are DENIED as unnecessary. His motion for oral argument is 

DENIED as moot.

2

Case: 14-10485 Document: 00513029394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2015