Case Name: Miles HARTSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon BRIDGE, et al., Defendants, Gallagher Bassett Services Inc., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-31
Citations: 79 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 03-30225
Parties: Miles HARTSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon BRIDGE, et al., Defendants, Gallagher Bassett Services Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
Miles HARTSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon BRIDGE, et al., Defendants, Gallagher Bassett Services Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-30225
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 31, 2003.
Miles Hartsell, pro se, Rodessa, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert W. Fenet, Edward P. Sutherland, Fenet, Jackson & Anderson, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
On appeal, Hartsell challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment for Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., the manager of a disability policy for the trucking company for which Hartsell worked. Hartsell asserts that he should have received more money from the policy after he suffered a back injury, and that Bassett should not have reduced his payment due to his receipt of Social Security benefits.
Hartsell's brief contains no meaningful legal argument and no record references, though he attaches some medical records to it. The brief is inadequate to raise any issues that we can comprehend on appeal. Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.1994). Further, while Hartsell's reply brief is more factually detailed, we cannot consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).
Even if we were to address Hartsell's appeal on the merits, we would agree with the district court's conclusion and reasoning that Bassett complied with the disability agreement and paid Hartsell what he was due.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.