* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

1 Appellant’s motion to waive the requirement to file record excerpts is

hereby GRANTED.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 97-21021

Summary Calendar

________________________

LAMBERT O. ADUMEKWE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MERCHANT’S HOME DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-3277)

________________________

July 29, 1998

Before DeMOSS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Although not entirely clear, the appellant, Lambert O.

Adumekwe, appears to appeal from the district court’s dismissal of

his complaint of employment discrimination on res judicata grounds

and the district court’s imposition of sanctions against him under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for violating the court’s order prohibiting him

from filing additional papers related to his previously settled

employment-discrimination claims.1 
Even though we apply a less stringent standard to parties

proceeding pro se than to those represented by counsel, and we

liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants, such parties are not

entirely relieved of the obligations to brief the issues and

otherwise reasonably comply with the requirements of Fed. R. App.

P. 28. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).

Rule 28(a)(6) requires that the appellant’s argument set forth the

reasons for the requested relief, with citation to the legal

authorities and the portions of the record on which he relies. See

United States v. Yohey, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1995). Failure

to comply with the court’s rules regarding the contents of briefs

can be grounds for dismissing a party’s claims. See 5th Cir. R.

43.3.2.

Adumekwe’s brief does not identify any error in the district

court’s decisions, either expressly or inferentially. In fact, he

has completely failed to point to any portion of the record or to

any legal authority that would suggest that the district erred in

dismissing his complaint and imposing sanctions. Instead, he

merely asks this court to “look into the whole judgment in this

case.” Because such a request fails to comply with the rules set

forth above, Adumekwe’s appeal can be summarily dismissed pursuant

to Rule 43.3.2. 

Nonetheless, we have examined the district court’s orders and

find no legal error in its decision to grant Merchant’s motion to

dismiss on the basis of res judicata. Likewise, we find no abuse
of discretion in its decision to sanction Adumekwe under Rule 11.

See Uithoven v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 884 F.2d 844 (5th

Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

As a final matter, because we find this appeal frivolous, and

noting Adumekwe’s pattern of filing frivolous papers in the

district court, we hereby ADVISE Adumekwe that any further

frivolous filings in this court will result in the imposition of

sanctions.