# Brown v. Gilliland

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · December 18, 1995 · 77 F.3d 476

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8315

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 18, 1995
- **Citations:** 77 F.3d 476; 1995 WL 798554
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8315

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20327
Conference Calendar
__________________

STEVEN WAYNE BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

C. GILLILAND ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-93-2301
- - - - - - - - - -
December 21, 1995
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Wayne Brown appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

action as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Brown

lists several issues for appeal regarding his claims of mailroom

misconduct and use of excessive force against him; recites a

number of factual allegations regarding his mailroom misconduct

claims; and contends in conclusional fashion that the district

court did not review the record sufficiently before dismissing

*
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of
opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of
well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the
public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that
Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
No. 95-20327
-2-

his case, condoned the defendants' misconduct, and was not aware

of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Postal Service to redress

complaints regarding institutional mail. Brown has failed to

provide legal arguments sufficient to brief the issues he

indicates he wishes to raise for appeal. His conclusional

allegations of error by the district court are insufficient to

provide this court a basis for review of the judgment. See Grant

v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995), Andrews v. Collins,

21 F.3d 612, 632 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 908

(1995). Because Brown has failed to brief any issues, his appeal

is frivolous.

We caution Brown that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Brown is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they previously have been decided by this

court.

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8315. Public record. Not legal advice.