Browning v. Love, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 9, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-40355
Conference Calendar
TYRONN ELISTER BROWNING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
K. C. LOVE, Doctor, Gurney Unit; CLASSIFICATION DEPARTMENT,
Gurney Unit; KAY SHEELEY, Regional Director; ROCHELLE MCKINNEY,
Professional Standards, Texas Department of Criminal Justice;
JOHN SHARP,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:00-CV-192
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Former Texas prisoner Tyronn Elister Browning appeals the
district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his job assignment during
his incarceration. On appeal, Browning does not address any of
the facts or issues raised in his complaint or the motion for
summary judgment, nor does he make any particular allegations

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-40355
-2-
against any of the named defendants. Failure to identify an
error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the
appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must
brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Browning’s appeal is without
arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is
DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

-- 2 of 2 --