* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-31002

(Summary Calendar)

LEON A. PUISSEGUR, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster

General,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-3752-L)

February 19, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this multi-faceted discrimination and constitutional rights

deprivation case, Plaintiff-Appellant Leon A. Puissegur, Jr.

appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims against1 Puissegur originally sued four individual employees of the

Postal Service as well, but voluntarily dismissed those defendants

early in the course of the instant litigation.

2 Defendant-Appellee, United States Postal Service, Marvin T. Runyon,

Jr., Postmaster General (the Postal Service), pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b) and 56. Agreeing with the district court’s adoption

of the Report and Recommendation of the ma gistrate judge that

Puissegur’s claims for racial discrimination, unlawful retaliation,

and violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth

Amendments should be dismissed, we affirm the judgment of dismissal

rendered by the district court.

I

Puissegur’s broadside attack on the Postal Service 1 stemmed

from a single, job-related incident, which is described in his

complaint, as follows:

On December 7, 1994, at approximately 5:30

a.m., MDO Watson and MDO Parks told plaintiff

his hat offended someone. MDO Watson asked

plaintiff to remove his hat. Plaintiff told

Watson that he would no t remove his hat.

Watson then escorted Plaintiff off the

workroom floor segregated him to a maintenance

supervisor and instructed the supervisor to

keep plaintiff off the workroom floor until

Plaintiff removed his hat.

At the time of that incident, Puissegur, a white male, was

wearing the hat that sparked the controversy; it bore the legend,

“I Can’t Be Fired, Slaves Have to Be Sold.” Puissegur

characterizes the incident as an adverse employment action and, by

vague implication from allegations tha t black employees were2 A PWU v. U. S. Postal Service

, 830 F.2d 294 (D.C. Cir.

1987).

3 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985; and

42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq

.

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and 56.

3 allowed to wear shirts and hats depicting Malcolm X and black

power, suggests the presence of racia l overtones behind the

controversy over his hat.

II

We resist the temptation to dispose of this appeal by

dismissing it as frivolous on the gross inadequacy of Puissegur’s

appellate brief: Its identification of interested persons is

incomplete; it cites but a single court case, and even that one is

from another circuit, 2 plus five statutes, 3 and two Feder al Rules

of Civil Procedure; 4 it lists fou r conclusionary issues or errors

ascribed to the district court; and it otherwise consists of but

four and one- half pages of “substance”: two pages containing the

Statement of the Case, one-half page containing the Conclusion, and

the remaining two pages containing the entire Summary of Argument

and Argument. Moreover, even these two pages consist of nothing

more than the conclusion ary statement that removal of Puissegur

from the workroom floor until he removed his cap violated several

of his co nstitutional and statutory rights, coupled with a third

regurgitation of the scant facts concerning the hat , its legend,

his removal from the workroom floor, and the caps and shirts worn5 These facts appear first in Puissegur’s S TATEMENT REGARDING

ORAL ARGUMENT , second in his Statement of the Facts, and third in

the first of his three paragraphs that constitute his entire

ARGUMENT.

4 by black employees of the Postal Service. 5

This skeletal filing on behalf of Puissegur is entirely

worthless from the standpoint of advancing his appeal or assisting

this court in its deliberations. In addition to taking the title

“Brief” to new extremes as to both form and substance, this

document fails to meet the spirit if not the letter of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Local Rules of this court

regarding the content of a brief, its purpose and function in the

appellate process, and the results

—— waiver and abandonment

—— of

failure to meet the requirements.

Rather than dismi ssing this appeal on grounds of waiver or

abandonment through failure adequat ely to brief the party’s

arguments and support them with meaningful authorities, however, we

chose to affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons

cogently and thoroughly set forth in the Report and Recommendation

of the magistrate judge. In contrast to Puissegur’s appellate

brief, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is a

well-craf ted legal writing that systematically addresses each of

Puissegur’s contentions and the law applicable to each, seriatim,

until each and every claim is shown to be unmeritorious. For us to

write further on this case would be a waste of judicial resources,

so instead we adopt the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate6 As one small exception to refraining from writing further,

we note ever so briefly that we recognize, as a matter of law, that

legends, symbols, logos, pins, and other verbal and non-verbal

accoutrement on articles of cloth ing can and frequently do

cons titute “speech” and some even rise to the level of

constitutionally protected speech. Here, though, we can discern no

intended meaning fro m the cryptic statement on Puissegur’s hat;

neither has he favored us w ith any explanation of the meaning of

the phrase or how it can garner First Amendment protection.

Clearly not all speech is public, protected speech, and neither the

subject statement nor anything in Puissegur’s pleadings or

appellate brief shed light on this issue.

5 judge as though fully written herein, and affirm the judgment of

the district court based there on, dismissing Puissegur’s action. 6

III

In closing we caution Puissegur and his counsel that baseless

and therefore frivolous suits and equally frivolous appeals can and

do subject parties and their lawyers to sanctions. The instant

case could well serve as an illustrat ion of sanctionable

litigation; but as the Postal Service has not urged the imposition

of sanctions, we shall refrain from doing so on our own motion.

AFFIRMED.