Opinion ID: 3164581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sandifer i motion and sandifer ii sanction

Text: On appeal, Wilson alleges that the district court committed three errors: (1) denying Wilson’s motion to enroll as co-counsel in Sandifer I; (2) striking Wilson as co-counsel in Sandifer II; and (3) sanctioning Wilson $1,000 for violating his duty of candor and for violating previous orders of the district 2 The district court noted at the hearing that Wilson had discussed with a magistrate judge about scheduling a settlement conference in Sandifer III, but during that discussion, Wilson had not informed the magistrate judge regarding the previous Sandifer matters or Wilson’s removal from those matters. 3 On July 10, 2014, the district court granted Sandifer’s motion to discharge Settle as her attorney and granted the motion to enroll Randy Dukes as the counsel of record. Dukes represented Sandifer through the remainder of the consolidated action. 5 Case: 15-30308 Document: 00513316467 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 No. 15-30308 court in Sandifer III. However, Wilson fails to adequately brief the first two issues in his initial brief. Wilson only cursorily references two authorities in support of his argument on the first issue and fails to identify relevant authority supporting the majority of his conclusory arguments. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446–47 (5th Cir. 2010) (stating that “[it] is not enough to merely mention or allude to a legal theory,” but that a party must “clearly identify[]” its theory and identify the relevant authorities supporting that theory); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring the initial brief to contain “[Wilson’s] contentions and reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which [Wilson] relies”). Moreover, Wilson fails to reference any authority supporting his arguments on the second issue. See In re Bouchie, 324 F.3d 780, 786 (5th Cir. 2003) (“As [appellant] cites no authority for this proposition, it is not adequately briefed and is therefore waived.”). Wilson has therefore waived these issues on appeal. Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 446. 4