Vauda Shipp, Jr. v. Zack Hawthorn, et al, No. 16-41693 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-41693 Document: 00514241902 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-41693 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED November 17, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk VAUDA VIRGLE SHIPP, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ZACK HAWTHORN, Magistrate Judge; RACHEL CHAPA; FRANK LARA; DALLAS JONES; JOEL LYN A. MCCORMICK; LEENA ALAAM; TIMOTHY FAERBER; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16-CV-154 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Vauda Virgle Shipp, Jr., federal prisoner # 09724-062, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failing to comply with the court’s order to pay the initial partial filing fee. We review a district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order for abuse of discretion. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-41693 Document: 00514241902 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2017 No. 16-41693 McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Shipp does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to comply with the court’s order to pay the initial filing fee. By failing to brief any argument challenging the district court’s reason for dismissal, Shipp has abandoned the issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Thus, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his action without prejudice. See McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Shipp’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is 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.