Case Name: Joseph YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH; Houston Housing Authority; Houston Police Department; Schnee, Dr. and Staff, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-29
Citations: 582 F. App'x 494
Docket Number: No. 14-20268
Parties: Joseph YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH; Houston Housing Authority; Houston Police Department; Schnee, Dr. and Staff, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 494–494

Head Matter:
Joseph YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH; Houston Housing Authority; Houston Police Department; Schnee, Dr. and Staff, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-20268
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 29, 2014.
Joseph Young, Houston, TX, pro se.
Karen Renee Miniex, General Counsel, Bennett James Reaves, IV Houston Housing Authority, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The district court dismissed Young's complaint on the grounds that (1) Young failed to effect proper service of process upon the defendants within the requisite time period, despite having been given extensions of time to do so, and (2) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Young failed to set forth facts establishing that the court had either federal question or diversity jurisdiction over his lawsuit. Young's opening brief contains no cognizable issues for review and attaches irrelevant exhibits from outside the record. His reply brief likewise fails to address, in a comprehensible manner, the basis for the district court's dismissal of his complaint. Based on our review of the record, the district court did not err. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Young's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.