Benedict Emesowum v. Adam Zeldes, et al


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50906 Affirmed] Judge: FPB, Judge: LHS, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 10/06/2017 [16-50906]

Download PDF
Case: 16-50906 Document: 00514157882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-50906 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 15, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BENEDICT EMESOWUM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ADAM ZELDES; JOHN DOE; CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; GRANT RUEDEMANN, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CV-831 Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Benedict Emesowum appeals the dismissal without an evidentiary hearing of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit arising from his arrest at a bus terminal and claiming that the defendants violated his constitutional rights in several regards. He does not challenge the district court’s several motion rulings contained in the order at issue and has, therefore, abandoned any such 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-50906 Document: 00514157882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2017 No. 16-50906 challenges. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). We review the dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, applying the standard used to review a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2003). Emesowum, whose brief consists of conclusory assertions and is entirely devoid of record citations, fails to show that the district court erred. See id. AFFIRMED. 2

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?