Case Name: Robert W. TOOMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WEATHERFORD, TEXAS; Parker County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-20
Citations: 111 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 04-10202
Parties: Robert W. TOOMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WEATHERFORD, TEXAS; Parker County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Robert W. TOOMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WEATHERFORD, TEXAS; Parker County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-10202.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 2004.
Robert W. Toomer, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert W. Toomer appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous for failing to state a cognizable claim. Toomer's complaint had accused various city officials and city employees of: (1) harassment, (2) unlawful arrest and selective prosecution, (3) verbal and physical abuse, (4) setting fire to his house, (5) stealing and defacing his property, and (6) unlawfully detaining and deporting his ailing wife. In his appellate brief, Toomer does not address the district court's conclusion that he failed to state a cognizable claim.
Failure to identify an error in the district court's analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Because Toomer has failed to contest the district court's conclusion that he failed to state a cognizable claim, he has waived the only issue relevant to his appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).
Toomer's appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Toomer that the filing of frivolous appeals and motions will invite the imposition of a sanction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.