IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10983

Summary Calendar

EARL H. MACKEY, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration;

TEXAS REHABILITATION COMMISSION,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:10-CV-105

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Earl H. Mackey, III, proceeding pro se, challenges the district court’s

dismissal of his action against the Texas Department of Assistive Rehabilitative

Services (DARS) and Micheal J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. We

affirm. 

In 2008, Mackey applied for a period of disability and for disability

insurance benefits, pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. The

Commissioner denied Mackey’s application, initially and upon reconsideration.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 16, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 11-10983 Document: 00511958735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2012
No. 11-10983

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on Mackey’s application and

held that Mackey did not qualify for disability insurance. The ALJ’s decision

became the Commissioner’s final decision after the Appeals Council denied

Mackey’s request for review. This action, in which Mackey seeks $972,000 in

past benefits and $1,000,000,000 in punitive damages, followed. 

Mackey’s action: (1) seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of

disability benefits, under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); (2) claims criminal conspiracy

against his constitutional rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241; and (3) claims

the denial of disability benefits as discrimination against him, in violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the § 405(g) claim against the

Commissioner, finding the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards and

substantial evidence in the record supported the decision to deny benefits. See

Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 447 (5th Cir. 2007). The court dismissed the

§ 405(g) claim against DARS on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. The

court dismissed the § 241 claim against both parties because it is a criminal

statute and does not provide for civil remedies. Finally, the court dismissed the

§ 1983 claims, against the Commissioner because he was a federal official acting

under color of federal law, not state law, and against DARS on Eleventh

Amendment immunity grounds.

On appeal, Mackey does not address the merits or reasoning of the district

court’s dismissal of his claims. Rather, he recounts his past failed attempts at

obtaining disability insurance and generally accuses defendants of

discriminating against him by not granting his requests. He also complains of

not having counsel appointed to him for this appeal, a request we previously

denied because Mackey failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances

warranting the appointment of counsel. 

2

Case: 11-10983 Document: 00511958735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2012
No. 11-10983

Although we “liberally construe” the filings of pro se litigants and “apply

less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented

by counsel,” pro se appellants must still comply with the principles of appellate

procedure. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

The appellant’s brief must contain an argument, which in turn must contain his

“contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts

of the record on which the appellant relies” and “for each issue, a concise

statement of the applicable standard of review.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); see

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). General arguments without

citations to any error are insufficient to preserve issues for appeal. See

Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987) (stating that failure to identify any error in district court’s analysis is as

if appellant had not appealed judgment). 

Because Mackey fails to address the district court’s reasons for dismissing

his claims, he has abandoned all issues on appeal. Furthermore, even if Mackey

had not abandoned these issues, a review of the district court’s order and its

reasoning shows that his claims were properly dismissed. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is 

 AFFIRMED. 

3

Case: 11-10983 Document: 00511958735 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2012