Court Opinion

ID: 30158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 09:50:53+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:58.916142
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                      _______________________

                            No. 02-60484
                          Summary Calendar
                      _______________________

JAMES W. DEATON,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                               versus

                     ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY,
               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGENCY,

                                                Defendant - Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

          Appeal from the United States District Court
            for the Northern District of Mississippi
                 Lower Docket No. 1:01-CV-53-B-A

_________________________________________________________________

                          January 6, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

          The pro se appellant challenges the district court’s

grant of summary judgment to the Agriculture Department in his suit

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
brought for termination of employment.    Deaton argues that he is

entitled to default judgment, that the district court judge should

have recused himself, and that the district court erred in granting

the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Because the appellant

does not cite any legal authority or comprehensible legal arguments

in support of his position, and his brief does not even grapple

with the issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel on which

the court based its decision, this court considers the challenges

abandoned for being inadequately briefed.   L&A Contracting Co. v.

S. Concrete Servs., Inc., 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994); F.R.A.P.

28(a)(9)(A).

          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                 2