IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50474

Summary Calendar

EDWARD DESHAN SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LONESTAR CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED; AMERIGROUP

COMMUNITY CARE; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND

DISABILITY SERVICES, Texas Home Living (TxHmL) Program Service

Definitions and Billing Guidelines; LARRY MOORE LOCKE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

No. A-11-CA-149-SS

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In February 2011, Edward Deshan Smith filed a lawsuit alleging various

constitutional and statutory violations. After accepting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation, the district court dismissed his pro se complaint. Finding no

error in the district court’s judgment, we affirm.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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: 11-50474 Document: 00511643378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2011
No. 11-50474

I.

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services funds minor home

physical modifications when necessary to address an individual’s specific needs. 

These modifications are performed to ensure the health, welfare, and safety of

the individual, or to enable the individual to function with greater independence

in the home. Examples of modifications include the installation of ramps and

the widening of doorways. 

Smith is a paraplegic who also suffers from mental health problems. At

one point, he lived in a nursing home. After an unspecified amount of time at

the nursing home, Smith moved in with his uncle. In November 2010, he alleges

that Lonestar Construction performed some work on his uncle’s home that was

funded by the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services. According to

Smith, Lonestar’s workers did a poor job with some plumbing work that was

performed. Smith also alleges that they performed similarly shoddy work on

other repairs that were done. Taken together, Smith avers that these poorly

performed repairs have rendered his uncle’s home a safety hazard. 

On February 28, 2011, Smith filed suit in federal court. In his pro se

complaint, Smith alleged that the work performed by Lonestar violated his

constitutional and statutory rights. On May 16, 2011, the district court, after

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed Smith’s complaint

in this action along with three other pending lawsuits. In light of “Smith’s

deluge of frivolous filings,” the district court also ordered the Clerk’s Office not

to open any new cases filed by or on behalf of Smith. Smith then filed a timely

notice of appeal. 

II.

On appeal, Smith continues to argue that the poor job performed by

Lonestar violated his constitutional and statutory rights. He fails, however, to

2

Case: 11-50474 Document: 00511643378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2011
No. 11-50474

set forth reasons why the district court’s judgment was incorrect. Given this

extremely undeveloped presentation, we conclude that any arguments attacking

the district court’s judgment have been abandoned on appeal. See Dardar v.

Lafourache Realty Co., Inc., 985 F.2d 824, 831 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Questions posed

for appellate review but inadequately briefed are considered abandoned.”)

(citations omitted). While we “liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and

apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties

represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably

comply with the standards of Rule 28.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th

Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Further, Smith has not shown that exceptional

circumstances exist that would warrant appointment of appellate counsel. See

Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).

III.

Finding no error in the district court’s judgment, we AFFIRM. All

pending motions are DENIED.

3

Case: 11-50474 Document: 00511643378 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/25/2011