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,

Defendants - Appellees

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, Assistant District Attorney Kristen Martin, Detective Vince Williams, 

and retained counsel Leslie Roussell. Thompson claimed: Detective Williams 

* 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

April 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60672 Document: 00515369282 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2020
No. 18-60672

2

violated his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him outside Detective 

Williams’ jurisdiction, searching his apartment 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 Detention Center, 

Jones County, and Roussell violated his constitutional rights by not reversing 

the bond revocation. He also challenged 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 order, 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 exhausted 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 Williams, 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: 04/02/2020
No. 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 dismissal 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 dismissal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) is also reviewed de novo. E.g., Black v. 

Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). 

On appeal, Thompson does not address the court’s reasons for dismissal; 

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 judgment”). 

AFFIRMED. 

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