Hartsell v. Bridge

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
October 31, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30225
Summary Calendar
MILES HARTSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHARON BRIDGE, ET AL.,
Defendants,
GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 05-CV-01-2619
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On appeal, Hartsell challenges the district court’s grant
of summary judgment for Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., the
manager of a disability policy for the trucking company for which
Hartsell worked. Hartsell asserts that he should have received

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
more money from the policy after he suffered a back injury, and
that Bassett should not have reduced his payment due to his receipt
of Social Security benefits.
Hartsell’s brief contains no meaningful legal argument
and no record references, though he attaches some medical records
to it. The brief is inadequate to raise any issues that we can
comprehend on appeal. Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th
Cir. 1994). Further, while Hartsell’s reply brief is more
factually detailed, we cannot consider arguments raised for the
first time in a reply brief. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Even if we were to address Hartsell’s appeal on the
merits, we would agree with the district court’s conclusion and
reasoning that Bassett complied with the disability agreement and
paid Hartsell what he was due.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --