Robert Hudnall v. University of Texas at El Paso, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-50229 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 10/06/2014 [14-50229]

Case: 14-50229

Document: 00512769156

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/15/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 14-50229
Summary Calendar

September 15, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

ROBERT K. HUDNALL,
v.

Plaintiff – Appellant

WILLIAM DETHLEFS, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El
Paso; RYAN C. HOLMES, Associate Dean of Students, Individually and Agent
for University of Texas at El Paso; CATIE MCCORRY-ANDELIS, Associate
Vice-President and Dean of Students for University of Texas at El Paso; GARY
EDENS, Vice-President for Student Affairs for University of Texas at El Paso;
MARIA CONTRERAS, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El
Paso; JOHN C. LOYA, Chief Administrator Officer for School of Liberal Arts,
Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El Paso; MARIA MICHEL,
Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El Paso; YOLANDA LEYVA,
Doctor of Philosophy, Individually and Agent for University of Texas at El
Paso; DOES 1-100; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO; JEFFREY
SHEPPARD, Doctor of Philosophy, Individually and Agent for University of
Texas at El Paso,
Defendants – Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:13-CV-365
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-50229

Document: 00512769156

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/15/2014

No. 14-50229
PER CURIAM:*
The court has carefully considered this appeal, but our consideration is
marred by insufficient and conclusory briefing. Appellant has waived his
claims on appeal by failing to adequately explain them and by failing to furnish
citations to the record. F.R.A.P. 28(a)(8); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225
(5th Cir. 1993)(citations to record are necessary; pro se appellants must brief
arguments correctly to preserve them); Moore v. FDIC, 993 F.2d 106, 107 (5th
Cir. 1993). Most of his arguments do not challenge the grounds for the district
court’s dismissal of each of his claims. Nevertheless, we find no reversible error
of fact or law by the district court and affirm for substantially the reasons
expressed in that court’s conscientious and well-reasoned opinion.
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.
*

2