* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40288

Conference Calendar

__________________

EARTHEL B. HILL,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

N.C. MCCLURE; B. THALER, T.L. DOERR;

C. PURVIS; B.W. RODEEN; R. AYERS;

L.J. JOHNSON; R.S. STULTS,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-87-CV-346

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 20, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case is here on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) on appeal. This Court may authorize Hill to proceed IFP on

appeal if he is unable to pay the costs of the appeal and the

appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents

nonfrivolous issues. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Holmes v. Hardy, 852

F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 931 (1988).
No. 95-40288

-2-

Hill argues in his first three listed issues that the

district court appointed ineffective counsel, that courtappointed counsel misrepresented him, and that he had an

expectation that he would receive reasonable representation from

counsel appointed by the district court. This court addressed

this issue in its previous order, noting that there is no right

to effective representation under the Sixth Amendment in civil

cases, citing Sanchez v. United States Postal Service, 785 F.2d

1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). This issue is frivolous.

Hill contends that he requested the district court to

instruct the jury that they could infer from the obviousness of

the risk that the defendants had knowledge, and that the district

court rejected this request. He contends that the facts

supported such an instruction.

Hill does not provide any record citations. He does not

state what facts support the instruction. This court could

decline to address this issue for failure to brief it adequately. 

See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d

744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Alternatively, addressing the merits

of the issue, Hill is correct that in Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S.

Ct. 1970, 1981-82 (1994), the Supreme Court stated that knowledge

could be inferred from an obvious risk. Hill did request the

district court to instruct the jury that "the requisite knowledge

can be demonstrated through direct evidence or inferred through

circumstantial evidence," but he did not request the district

court to instruct the jury that they could infer knowledge from

the obviousness of the risk. Thus, Hill was not deprived of a
No. 95-40288

-3-

fair trial due to the district court's failure to give an

instruction that was never requested.

Hill argues that the district court abused its discretion in

granting defendants' summary judgment motion. He states that the

defendants did not show that there was no genuine issue of

material fact or that they were entitled to summary judgment as a

matter of law.

Hill does not state what material issues of fact he contends

exist to preclude summary judgment for the defendants. He does

not cite any case law regarding his burden of proof on the

dismissed claims, or what facts he presented to the court on

summary judgment which would allow him to reach the jury on those

claims. This Court will not raise and discuss legal issues that

the appellant has failed to assert. Claims not pressed on appeal

are considered abandoned. A recitation of rules governing review

of summary judgment without identification of any error in the

district court's analysis or application to the facts of the case

is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. 

Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. 

We caution Hill that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. 

To avoid sanctions, Hill is further cautioned to review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.