### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60147 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM O. DAVISON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee,

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Southern District of Mississippi

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: William Davison, arguing pro se , appeals the district court’s summary ju d gment on his racial discrimination claims against H untington Ingalls, Incorporated (“Huntington”). Because D avi s o n ’ s a p p e l l a t e b ri e f f ail s r e a s o n ab ly t oc o m p ly

w ithF e d e r alRu l eo f

Ap p e l l at e P r o c e du r e28, Huntington’s motion to summarily dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. Rule 28 requires an appellant’s b rief to contain, inter alia , “ a statement of the issues presented for review,” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(5), “a statement of facts relevant to t he issues submitt ed for review with appropriate references to the U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 29, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk Case: 12-60147 Document: 00512191584 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2013No. 12-60147

record,” 1 Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(7), as w e ll a s an a rgument section comprised of “appell a n t ’s contentions and the reasons for them, with c i tations to the authorities and parts of t he record on which the appellant relies” and “a concise statement of the applicable standard of review,” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9). “Although we l iberally construe pro se b riefs, such l i tigants must s till brief t h e i s s u e s a nd reasonably comply with the standards of Rule 28 in order to preserve them.” Clark v . Waters , 407 F. Ap p ’x 794, 796 (5th Cir. 2011). “Failure to comply with the rules o f thi s c o u r t regarding the contents of b riefs can be grounds for dismissing a party’s c l a i m s . ” U nited States v. Wilkes , 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th C ir. 1994) (per c uriam). D ismissal is w a r r a nted w here the noncompliance is not merely “technical or s tylistic,” but rather is so “fundamental” t h a t it prevents the court from engaging in meaningful r e view. Owens v. Se c ’ y of Army , 354 F. App’x 156, 158 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for want of prosecution o n the ground t h at appellant’s brief “lacks any argument i n support of the issues that it raises”); s ee a lso Clark v. Waters , 407 F

. Ap p ’ x 794, 7 96 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal on ground that appellant’s brief “is grossly non-compliant with Rule 28”). Davison’s brief does n ot c o mply w ith Rule 28 i n many crucial respects. Instead of listing the issues presented for review, he recites t he federal statute giving rise to his cause of a ction—Title VII o f the Civil Rights Act of 1964—and three theories of recovery: “H o stile Work Environment,” “Unfair Labor Practices,” and “Denial of Proper T raining.” His statement of facts lists, without elaboration, fou r allegations: “Racial graffiti on the bathroom walls w as reported to supervisors,” “Unfair l abor practices-moving p eople out of seniority,” “Denied training in order to do a job properly,” and “ N o t posting upcoming jobs o penings

1 R ule 28( a) ( 7) is s up p lem ented by Fif th Circuit Rule 28. 2. 2, w hich m ore s t r i c t ly requires “[ e] very as s ertion in briefs rega r d i n g m atter in the record [ to] be sup p orted by a ref erence to the p age num ber of the original record

. ” 2 Case: 12-60147 Document: 00512191584 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2013No. 12-60147

and promotions”; and does not contain record citations. In h is argument section, which does not state the standard of review, he asserts t hat Magistrate Judge John Rope r a n d District J udge Halil Ozerden “violated our United States Constitutional R ights and our Civi l R i g h t due t o the fact that they never gave

us the chance to be h eard i n the State of Mississippi where some of the plaintiffs live and pay taxes” and r eiterates that he “deserve[s] the right to be heard by a jury.” H e does not s pecify t he basis for his challenge to the district court’s summary j udgment. H e does not argue, for example, that triable issues of fact remain; or that his claims are not barred b y statutes of limitation set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). I n summary, Davison’s brief does not identify the nature of his challenge or its factual and l e g a l u nderpinnings, and is thus materially non-compliant with Rule 28. On that basis, we GRANT Huntington’s motion to dismiss summarily the appeal, and DISMISS the appeal for want of prosecution. See Owens , 354 F. App’x at 158.

3 Case: 12-60147 Document: 00512191584 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2013