Gunn v. Tuscaloosa City Sch, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60003
Conference Calendar
SHELIA GUNN, on behalf of Johnathan Gunn,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TUSCALOOSA CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM; STATE OF ALABAMA,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:04-CV-23
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shelia Gunn, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal for
want of personal jurisdiction of her civil complaint in which she
alleged that the Tuscaloosa City School System and the State of
Alabama violated her son’s civil rights in contravention of
federal and state law. Gunn does not challenge on appeal the
basis for the district court’s dismissal of her complaint and,
instead, reurges the claims raised in her complaint.
When an appellant fails to identify any error in the
district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-60003
-2-
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). Because Gunn has not challenged the
basis for the district court’s dismissal of her complaint, she
has abandoned the issue, and this court need not further address
it. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.
For the first time on appeal, Gunn argues that a social
worker for the Monroe County, Mississippi Department of Human
Services had her arrested based on false allegations that Gunn
had abused her son and her mother. She also alleges that the
Monroe County School District “allowed [her son’s] eligibility to
run out.” Because Gunn failed to present these claims to the
district court, this court need not consider them. See Burch v.
Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 319 (5th Cir. 1997).
The district court’s dismissal of Gunn’s complaint is
affirmed. Gunn’s motion to be appointed guardian ad litem is
denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --