### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60672 Summary Calendar

TRAVIS JAMES THOMPSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. LESLIE D. ROUSSELL, Lawyer; VINCE WILLIAMS , Defendant s - Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:17

- CV

- 101

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , Travis James Thompson, Mississippi prisoner # 141486, challenges the district court’s dismissal of his action , filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , against Judge Dal Williamson, Judge Kyle Robertson, the Jones County Adult Detention Center, Jones County, As sistant District Attorney Kristen Martin, Detective Vince Williams, and retained counsel Leslie Roussell

. Thompson claimed : Detective Williams

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 2, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60672 Document: 00515369282 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2020No. 18

- 60672

2 violated his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him outside Detective Williams’ jurisdiction, searching his a partment without his permission, and presenting his prior criminal charges to Judge Robertson at a bond

- revocation hearing ; Judges Robertson and Williamson improperly revoked his bond; and Assistant District Attorney Martin, the Jones County Adult Detentio n Center, Jones County, and Roussell violated his constitutional rights by not reversing the bond revocation. He also challeng ed the validity of his conviction and
sentence

. The court dismissed , sua sponte , all claims against Judges Robertson and Williamson, Assistant District Attorney Martin, the Jones County Adult Detention Center, and Jones County for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The remaining claims were referred to a magistrate judge. ( In this first or der, the court also dismissed, without prejudice, Thompson’s claims seeking release, cognizable only in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, because Thompson had not shown he exhaust ed state remedies.) Adopting the magistrate judge’s subsequent report and recommendations, the court dismissed the claim against Roussell for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) , because , contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he did not act under color of state law. As to Detective William s, the court dismissed : the extraterritorial

- arrest claim , pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) , because the arrest did not violate Thompson’s constitutional rights; the illegal

- search claim , pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) , as barred under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and because, in any event, the allegations failed to state a claim; and the bond

- revocation charges , pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) , because Detective Williams was entitled to absolute immunity. (To the extent Thompson pleaded any state

- Case: 18-60672 Document: 00515369282 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2020No. 18

- 60672

3 law claims, these were dismissed without prejudice because the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c )(3).) A d ismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo

. E.g. , Ruiz v. Brennan , 851 F.3d 464, 468 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). A d ismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (b)(i i) is also reviewed de novo

. E.g. , Black v. Warren , 134 F.3d 73 2, 734 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted)

. On appeal, Thompson does not address the court’s reasons for dismis sal ; he has , therefore, abandoned his claims

. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

– 25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Brinkmann v. Dall

. Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 745, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (concluding pro se appellant’s failure to identify “any error in [court’s] legal analysis or its application to [appellant’s] suit

. . . is the same as if [appellant] had not appealed that judgme nt”)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 18-60672 Document: 00515369282 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2020