IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10519

DERRICK LANARD FORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GLENNA S. BLAIR, Clerk II,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CV-180

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derrick Lanard Ford, Texas prisoner # 1474214, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

action against Glenna S. Blair, a mail clerk in the Allred Unit of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice, alleging that she censored and tampered with 

his mail and failed to deliver it. Ford raised claims that Blair violated his First 

Amendment rights and interfered with his access to courts. The district court 

granted Blair’s motion for summary judgment, finding that she was entitled to 

qualified immunity; dismissed the claims as frivolous; and denied Ford’s 

 

* 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

June 14, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10519 Document: 00513546779 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2016
No. 15-10519

2

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The court certified that 

the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP status in this court, 

Ford is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 

F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Ford’s argument that the district court erred by granting Blair’s motion 

without first informing him that he had a right to file an affidavit opposing her 

motion fails; the district court had no obligation to provide Ford with 

particularized instructions on the requirements and consequences of summary 

judgment. See Martin v. Harrison Cnty. Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Likewise, Ford cannot show that the district court erred by denying his motion 

to conduct discovery; he has not identified the discovery he sought or explained 

why the discovery would have influenced the outcome of Blair’s motion. See 

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d); see also Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552, 561 (5th Cir. 

2010). 

Ford raises no substantive argument that the district court erred in 

dismissing his First Amendment or denial of access to courts claims. Although 

pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief 

arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 

(5th Cir. 1993). As Ford fails to identify any error in the district court’s

analysis as to these claims, it is the same as if he had not appealed these issues. 

See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th 

Cir. 1987). 

Ford’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. 

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we deny the IFP 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous and our 

dismissal of the appeal as frivolous count as “strikes” for purposes of the “three 

 Case: 15-10519 Document: 00513546779 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2016
No. 15-10519

3

strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 

1759, 1763-64 (2015). Ford is WARNED that if he accumulates at least three 

strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil 

action or appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is incarcerated 

or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED.

 Case: 15-10519 Document: 00513546779 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/14/2016