Case Name: Mayford Kenneth DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Catherine ZELLERS; Jessica Richard; Justin Holcomb, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-27
Citations: 688 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 15-11201 Summary Calendar
Parties: Mayford Kenneth DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Catherine ZELLERS; Jessica Richard; Justin Holcomb, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 247–247

Head Matter:
Mayford Kenneth DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Catherine ZELLERS; Jessica Richard; Justin Holcomb, Defendants-Appellees
No. 15-11201 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed April 27, 2017
Mayford Kenneth Davis, Jr., Pro Se
James Thomas Jeffrey, Jr., Esq., Law Offices of Jim Jeffrey, Arlington, TX, for Defendants-Appellees
Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mayford Kenneth Davis, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). His complaint seeks, inter alia, damages against the prosecutor and two police-officer witnesses at the trial resulting in his conviction, pursuant to Texas Penal Code § 42.01(a)(10), for indecency arising out of an incident of nude sunbathing at a middle school.
On appeal, however, Davis does not address Heck. Instead, he reasserts the merits of his contentions without referencing any specific error by the court. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief contentions in order to preserve, them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Davis has not identified any error in the court's analysis and determinations, or even mentioned any possible appellate issues, he has abandoned them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.