Robert McClure v. Kevin Mayfield, et al, No. 13-20484 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-20484 Document: 00513106191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-20484 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 7, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROBERT TROY MCCLURE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Warden KEVIN MAYFIELD; JANE DOE; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Agency of State of Texas; BRAD LIVINGSTON, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Major WATSON; BILLY HIRSCH, Senior Warden; Lieutenant BOLTON; AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION; Lieutenant SPIVEY; JACQUILLE REED; VICTOR ROSS, Defendants-Appellees Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-3260 Before REAVLEY, DENNIS and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Troy McClure, Texas prisoner # 1420457, while housed in the Wynne Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-ID), filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-20484 Document: 00513106191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 No. 13-20484 warden, the “safe prison” officer, and the TDCJ-ID. After the district court revoked McClure’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status, it granted these defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied McClure’s motions to amend his complaint. McClure argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his IFP status and dismissing his case because the filing fee was not paid. Although there is no indication in the record that McClure paid the filing fee, there is also no indication that the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to pay the fee. Accordingly, we do not address whether the district court erred in revoking McClure’s IFP status. The district court dismissed the claims against the defendants due to various legal doctrines and on Eleventh Amendment immunity. McClure’s failure to brief the validity of those grounds abandons his challenge to the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss. See Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although 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). McClure argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to amend the complaint that he filed on April 4, 2013. We do not address this argument. In his motion for an extension of time to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, McClure specifically asked the court to “disregard all motions to amend [his] complaint” and stated, “I withdraw the motions to amend the complaints.” The judgment is AFFIRMED. McClure’s motion to strike the appellees response brief as untimely is DENIED. Appellees received an extension for filing until September 9, 2014, and their brief was filed that day. McClure’s motion to accept his reply brief is GRANTED. That brief was considered. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
