Stephen Avdeef v. Google, Incorporated
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-10946 Affirmed in Part and Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction in Part] Judge: WED, Judge: FPB, Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 03/24/2017 [15-10946]
Date Filed: 03/03/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
March 3, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
STEPHEN M. AVDEEF,
GOOGLE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CV-788
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Stephen M. Avdeef appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his
copyright infringement complaint against Google, Inc. While pro se briefs are
afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in
order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Avdeef fails to set forth the substance of his claims in meaningful detail and
does not address the grounds upon which the district court dismissed his
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 03/03/2017
complaint. He does not mention the district court’s finding that Google was
entitled to protection under the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512. By failing to challenge the district court’s
reasons for granting summary judgment in favor of Google, Avdeef has
abandoned the claim on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
In his complaint, Avdeef also named Google’s chief legal officer, David C.
Drummond, as a defendant. In a final appealable order, the district court
dismissed Avdeef’s complaint against Drummond for lack of personal
jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). Because Avdeef failed to file a timely
notice of appeal as to this order, we lack jurisdiction to consider any claim
challenging the dismissal of Drummond as a defendant in the instant action.
See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?