* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20369

RAMON A MEDINA, P E, Individually and as Parent of

Luis-Francisco Emmanuel Medina, Deceased;

MARIA TERESA MEDINA, Individually and as Parent of

Luis-Francisco Emmanuel Medina, Deceased,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

VERSUS

JOHN P DEVINE, Honorable; ET AL

Defendants,

JOHN P DEVINE, Honorable

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-2485)

June 5, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
-2-

The Medinas filed a wrongful death suit in the state district

court of Harris County, Texas. The case was assigned to Honorable

John P. Devine, a judge of the 190th Judicial District. The

Medinas objected to various decorations displayed in Judge Devine’s

courtroom, which include the Ten Commandments, portraits of George

Washington and Abraham Lincoln in prayer, and five excerpts from

the Bible. They filed a complaint in federal court alleging

violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

Constitution. Soon thereafter, they began to press for Judge

Devine’s recusal. When counsel for the Medinas filed a grievance

against Judge Devine, the judge decided to recuse himself.

In federal court, the Medinas sought a preliminary injunction

to prevent Judge Devine from displaying religious pictures in his

courtroom and adjoining public areas. The Medinas’ motion was

denied and the case was dismissed on mootness grounds in a

memorandum and order filed on April 4, 1997. The live pleading

before this Court is “Plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of Appeal,” filed

in the federal district court on April 8, 1997. The appeal, taken

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), specifically and exclusively

designates the district court’s “April 4, 1997 Order denying

preliminary injunction” as the subject of appeal.

In their brief to this Court, the Medinas allege numerous

points of error, including the district court’s failure to recuse

or disqualify itself, disposal of the case on mootness grounds,
 

† That this was their intention is beyond dispute. The

Medinas’ original notice of appeal identified the district court’s

“April 4, 1997 Order denying preliminary injunction and motion for

summary judgment.” The Medinas subsequently amended their notice

of appeal to delete the reference to denial of summary judgment and

proceeded to file additional motions on the merits of the case in

the district court. Thus, the Medinas’ isolation of the appeal to

the denial of preliminary injunctive relief was deliberate, and

now, controlling.

-3-

refusal to grant leave to amend the complaint, mischaracterization

of the evidence, misapplication of the Establishment Clause of the

First Amendment, and failure to consider a due process claim. We

cannot consider any of these arguments. The Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure specify that a “notice of appeal . . . must

designate the judgment, order, or part thereof appealed from.”

FED. R. APP. P. 3(c). The only ruling of the district court

appealed by the Medinas was the denial of a preliminary

injunction.† We are therefore deprived of appellate jurisdiction

to consider any other aspects of the district court’s judgment.

See Trust Co. v. N.N.P. Inc., 104 F.3d 1478, 1485 (5th Cir. 1997)

(“[W]here a party designates in the notice of appeal particular

orders only (and not the final judgment), we are without

jurisdiction to hear challenges to other rulings or orders not

specified in the notice of appeal.”); see generally 16A CHARLES ALAN

WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3949.4 (2d ed. 1996).

The Medinas’ brief fails to discuss the order denying a

preliminary injunction. Arguments that are not briefed on appeal

are waived. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(6); In re T-H New Orleans
-4-

Ltd. Partnership, 116 F.3d 790, 796 (5th Cir. 1997).

Because of the Medinas’ failure to present argument regarding

the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, that order

of the district court is AFFIRMED. To the extent that the Medinas’

appeal purports to present other issues for appellate jurisdiction,

it is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.