Rice v. Tillery, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
July 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-30542
Summary Calendar
FRANKLIN RICE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CLOVIS TILLERY, Warden; RICHARD STALDER,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:05-CV-1112
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Franklin Rice, former Louisiana prisoner # 252163, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for
failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rice contends that district court erred in dismissing his
complaint that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
the safety hazard to prisoners at the Richwood Corrections Center
posed by the razor wire which surrounds the compound; that the
district court erred in not granting his motion for a default

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-30542
-2-
judgment based on the defendants’ failure to answer his request
for waiver of service of summons; and that the district court
erred in dismissing the complaint based on Rice’s lack of
objections to the MJ’s report and recommendation.
Although this court applies less stringent standards to
parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel
and liberally construes briefs of pro se litigants, pro se
parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with
the requirements of Rule 28 of Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).
The appellant’s brief must contain an argument, which in turn
must contain his “contentions and the reasons for them, with
citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the
appellant relies” and “for each issue, a concise statement of the
applicable standard of review[.]” FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9); see
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). General
arguments giving only broad standards of review and not citing to
specific errors are insufficient to preserve issues for appeal.
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d
744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Rice has not briefed adequately any of his arguments on
appeal. Rice’s appeal is without merit, and the appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

-- 2 of 2 --