Case Name: Cristobal Moreno OROZCO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF ANGLETON; Judge Robert E. May; Von H. Shelton, Attorney; Dale Summa, Prosecutor; Terri Tipton Holder, Prosecutor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-08
Citations: 690 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 16-20448 Summary Calendar
Parties: Cristobal Moreno OROZCO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF ANGLETON; Judge Robert E. May; Von H. Shelton, Attorney; Dale Summa, Prosecutor; Terri Tipton Holder, Prosecutor, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
Cristobal Moreno OROZCO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF ANGLETON; Judge Robert E. May; Von H. Shelton, Attorney; Dale Summa, Prosecutor; Terri Tipton Holder, Prosecutor, Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-20448 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 8, 2017
Cristobal Moreno Orozco, Pro Se
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cristobal Moreno Orozco, proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging his 2000 Brazoria County, Texas, guilty plea conviction for aggravated kidnapping, for which he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The district court dismissed Orozcos's claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). On appeal, Orozco does not address Heck. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Orozco has not identified any error in the district court's analysis and determinations, he has abandoned them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F,2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set'forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.