James Chambers v. Tarrant County, et al, No. 15-10985 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10985 Document: 00513631947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10985 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 10, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JAMES K. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TARRANT COUNTY; TARRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CV-456 Before SMITH, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James K. Chambers has appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the denial of his motion for emergency relief. He also seeks an injunction pending his appeal and requests the appointment of counsel. In his appellate brief, Chambers does not address the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Tarrant County and the Tarrant County 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-10985 Document: 00513631947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2016 No. 15-10985 Hospital District. He simply restates on appeal that he was denied proper medical care and that jail staff interfered with his litigating his pending federal lawsuits, but he does not show how or why the district court erred in dismissing his claims. He also fails to challenge or even mention the district court’s denial of his motion for emergency relief. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 22425 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Chambers fails to raise any argument regarding the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 lawsuit and the denial of his request for emergency relief, these claims are abandoned. See id. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the motions for injunctive relief pending appeal and for the appointment of counsel are DENIED. 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.
