United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10861

Summary Calendar

____________

Bueford James Friemel, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Randall County Sheriff, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:23-CV-95

______________________________

Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiff-Appellant, Bueford James Friemel, proceeding prose, appeals

the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his complaint for 

failure to comply with a court order to amend his complaint. We AFFIRM.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against “Randall County Sheriffs” for civil 

rights violations and defamation. He alleged that on June 11, 2022, Randall 

_____________________

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 29, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10861 Document: 00516982594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
No. 23-10861

2

County Sheriffs illegally removed a fence on his property and forced him to 

move twenty-five vehicles off the property. He contends that he lived on the 

property for twenty-five years and operated a mechanic shop on the property 

for seventeen years. After filing his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application 

to proceed in forma pauperis, which the district court denied. In the order 

denying his application, the district court noted that Plaintiff failed to identify 

“by name the defendant to this lawsuit or pa[y] court costs.” The court 

consequently ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint to identify the 

defendant by name and pay court costs on or before July 17, 2023. On 

August 4, 2023, noting that Plaintiff had not amended his complaint, the 

district court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to comply with 

its order. 

Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a district 

court may dismiss an action sua sponte if the plaintiff fails to comply with 

court orders.”1

 This Court reviews such dismissals for abuse of discretion.2 

“A district court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an 

erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the 

evidence.”3

Plaintiff does not argue that the district court abused its discretion or 

otherwise erred in dismissing his complaint under Rule 41(b). His appellate 

brief appears to concern a different case he filed in district court that was 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to show good cause for not serving 

defendants in a timely manner. Plaintiff appealed that dismissal, and this 

_____________________

1 Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016) 

(citation omitted).

2 Id. at 441 (citation omitted).

3 Thomas v. Hughes, 27 F.4th 995, 1006 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

Case: 23-10861 Document: 00516982594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
No. 23-10861

3

Court affirmed on July 28, 2023.4 He also argues the merits of his claim that

state officials unlawfully moved the boundary line of his property and forced 

him to move vehicles off the property. 

Although this Court liberally construes pro se briefs, “pro se parties 

must still brief the issues.”5

 Because Plaintiff fails to challenge the basis for 

the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), Plaintiff has waived the issue, 

and thus, in effect, has not appealed the judgment.6 Accordingly, the district 

court’s without-prejudice dismissal is AFFIRMED.

_____________________

4 Friemel v. Deleon, No. 23-10172, 2023 WL 4837889 (5th Cir. July 28, 2023).

5 Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 

225 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[A]rguments must be briefed to be preserved.”).

6 Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) 

(holding that appellant’s failure to identify any error in the basis for the district court’s 

judgment “is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment”).

Case: 23-10861 Document: 00516982594 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/29/2023