William Oliver v. Bankfirst, No. 13-60161 (5th Cir. 2014)Annotate this Case
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 16, 2014.
Case: 13-60161 Document: 00512503248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-60161 Summary Calendar January 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk WILLIAM H. OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. BANKFIRST, Defendant-Appellee, BILL SKINNER, Defendant-Appellee, CrossAppellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:09-CV-29 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pro se plaintiff William H. Oliver appeals from the dismissal, much earlier in this proceeding, of all his claims relating to the defendants actions 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-60161 Document: 00512503248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 No. 13-60161 concerning Oliver s former property following a foreclosure sale. Oliver s brief, such as it is, consists of a short series of conclusory statements without any legal or factual analysis. Failure to provide any legal or factual analysis of an issue results in waiver. 1 While we construe pro se briefs liberally, pro se plaintiffs are still required to adequately brief issues for review. 2 Accordingly, we dismiss Oliver s appeal. Defendant-appellee and cross-appellant Bill Skinner appeals from the district court s judgment, following a bench trial, dismissing Skinner s counterclaims, including abuse of process, attorney s fees, costs, sanctions, and injunctive relief. As Skinner concedes in his brief, our review on these issues is for abuse of discretion, and our review of the facts is limited to clear error. 3 We find no abuse of discretion or clear error in any part of the district court s We specifically note that the district order supporting its final judgment. 4 court granted Skinner s motion for Rule 11 sanctions and imposed sanctions in the amount of $250 against Oliver. 5 We will not upset this award. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of the district court. 1 American States Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 1998). 2 See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). 3 See United States v. Mississippi, 921 F.2d 604, 609 (5th Cir. 1991). See Oliver v. Skinner, No. 4:09-CV-29-CWR-LRA, 2013 WL 667664 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 22, 2013). 4 5 Id. 2