James Cavazos v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., et al

Filing

James Cavazos v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-20709

Document: 00511181763

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/22/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-20709 S u m m a r y Calendar July 22, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

J A M E S CAVAZOS, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v.

J P MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BARRETT DAFFIN F R A P P IE R TURNER & ENGLE L.L.P.; EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION; M E R S ; SOUTHSTAR FUNDING LLC; MERSCORP INCORPORATED, 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 Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:09-CV-648

B e fo r e SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J a m e s Cavazos appeals the judgment dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, h is mortgage fraud suit against the defendants. Cavazos's initial brief failed to a t t e m p t to demonstrate error in the district court's determination that he was

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-20709

Document: 00511181763 Page: 2 No. 09-20709

Date Filed: 07/22/2010

w it h o u t standing to sue.1 Cavazos's failure to identify any error in the district c o u r t's analysis on this issue constitutes a failure to appeal that ruling. See B r in k m a n n v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1 9 8 7 ). As are other litigants, a pro se party is required to brief arguments in o r d e r to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Consequently, we deem Cavazos's appeal to have been abandoned. His effort to a d d r e s s standing in his reply brief comes too late, as we will not consider a r g u m e n t s raised for the first time in a reply brief.2 United States v. Jackson, 4 2 6 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005)("Arguments raised for the first time in a r e p ly brief, even by pro se litigants . . . are waived.") Accordingly, the judgment b e lo w is affirmed; the pending motion to strike Cavazos's record excerpts is d e n ie d as moot. A F F I R M E D ; MOTION TO STRIKE RECORD EXCERPTS DENIED AS M OOT.

Cavazos contended only that a "Notice of International Commercial Claim in Admiralty Administrative Remedy" he sent to the defendants around the time this case was removed constitutes proof of his claimed ownership in the property due to "estoppel by acquiescence." To the extent that this constitutes a challenge to the district court's standing determination, it is frivolous. In any event, Cavazos's reply brief is wholly lacking in any legal citation, relying instead on quoting Latin maxims which in no way address the specific reasoning of the district court.
2

1

2