United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-50903

Summary Calendar

David Foster Alderidge, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Gary Painter, Acting Sheriff of Midland, Texas; John/Jane Doe, 

Supervisor, Manager, Clerk, or Coordinator of the Records Division of the 

Midland County Sheriff’s Office; John/Jane Doe, Supervisor, Manager, 

Clerk, or Coordinator of the Records Clerk of the Institutional Division of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice; FNU Perez, Intake Coordinator of 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Rogelio Sanchez Unit, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CV-11

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 10, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50903 Document: 00516088181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2021
No. 19-50903

2

David Foster Alderidge, former Texas prisoner # 2072837, filed a civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various defendants. He 

maintained that his constitutional rights were violated because he was 

unlawfully imprisoned beyond his release date. He asserted that the terms of 

his sentence were not properly implemented and that officials failed to apply 

the presentence credit that he was awarded. The district court granted 

summary judgment in part and dismissed the complaint in part for failure to 

state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Alderidge appeals the disposition of his § 1983 complaint. He also has 

moved to amend the caption. The motion is granted.

Alderidge has not set forth any arguments concerning his claims. He 

does not acknowledge the basis upon which the district court determined that 

he was not entitled to relief and, specifically, fails to identify any error in the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment or its dismissal for failure to state 

a claim. While he refers us to the district court record, he does not reiterate 

a relevant argument that he raised in the district court or identify a previously 

asserted claim that constitutes a challenge to the district court’s reasoning

for disposing of his § 1983 complaint. Incorporation by reference otherwise 

is not allowed. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). We 

afford pro se briefs liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-

21 (1972), but even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them, 

Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25. Thus, Alderidge has abandoned any challenge to 

the district court’s disposition of his complaint. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. 

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Alderidge had not raised any legal point of arguable merit, we 

dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Our dismissal counts 

as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Alderidge is cautioned that if 

he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any 

Case: 19-50903 Document: 00516088181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2021
No. 19-50903

3

civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility 

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

Further, he is warned that, regardless of the bar of § 1915(g), future frivolous 

filings will also subject him to monetary sanctions and limits on his access to 

this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO AMEND CAPTION 

GRANTED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

Case: 19-50903 Document: 00516088181 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/10/2021