Case Name: Jose Eric SILVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Constance REESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-10
Citations: 82 F. App'x 938
Docket Number: No. 03-40871
Parties: Jose Eric SILVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Constance REESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 938–939

Head Matter:
Jose Eric SILVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Constance REESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-40871.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 10, 2003.
Jose Eric Silva, pro se, Beaumont, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jose Eric Silva, federal prisoner #20105-148, appeals the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court construed his petition as a civil rights action because Silva is challenging the conditions of his confinement. See Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir.1997).
As the district court correctly held, whether Silva's petition is construed as a habeas petition or a civil rights action, he was required to exhaust his prison administrative remedies prior to seeking relief in the federal court, and the record reflects that he failed to do so. See Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 & n. 6 (5th Cir.1993).
On appeal, Silva has not addressed the district court's dismissal of his petition for failure to exhaust. Because Silva has failed to contest the district court's conclusion that he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, any challenge to such conclusion is abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). The dismissal of his petition without prejudice 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.