Ernest Cordell v. Hood County, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-10833 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES Mandate pull date is 11/02/2010; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Ernest Benton Cordell [6477255-2], denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Ernest Benton Cordell [6425500-2] [09-10833]

Ernest Cordell v. Hood County, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-10833

Document: 00511260159

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/12/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-10833 S u m m a r y Calendar October 12, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

E R N E S T BENTON CORDELL, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. H O O D COUNTY; GENE MAYO, Hood County Sheriff, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:08-CV-452

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* E r n e s t Benton Cordell, Texas prisoner # 1574525, appeals the district c o u r t's judgment of dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Hood C o u n ty , Texas, Hood County Sheriff Gene Mayo, and Tarrant County, Texas. Cordell argues that the district court erred by dismissing his claims against T a r r a n t County and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Cordell h a s also filed two motions for the appointment of counsel.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-10833

Document: 00511260159 Page: 2 No. 09-10833

Date Filed: 10/12/2010

C o r d e ll's brief and his motions for appointment of counsel do not address t h e district court's finding that Hood County and Sheriff Mayo were entitled to s u m m a r y judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9) (providing that the brief must in c lu d e argument with appellant's contentions, citations to the record, and s u p p o r t in g authorities). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, H a in e s v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), arguments must be briefed to be p r e s e r v e d . Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Cordell's fa ilu r e to identify any error in the district court's analysis constitutes an a b a n d o n m e n t of his claims against Hood County and Sheriff Mayo. Brinkmann v . Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Next, the district court did not err in dismissing Tarrant County from the lit ig a t io n after the parties, including Cordell through his counsel, filed a joint s t ip u la t io n dismissing Tarrant County under FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). C o r d e ll does not argue, and the record does not indicate, that the district court w a s ever informed of Cordell's purported disagreement with counsel. Finally, as the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel does n o t apply in civil cases, see Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5 t h Cir. 1986), we do not decide whether Cordell's counsel rendered ineffective a s s is t a n c e here. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is A F F IR M E D . Cordell's motions for the appointment of counsel are DENIED.

2