Hoog v. Frio County ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50662
Conference Calendar
CHARLES T. HOOG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FRIO COUNTY, In Its Municipal Capacity; FRIO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, In Its Municipal Capacity; MEDINA COUNTY, In Its
Municipal Capacity; MEDINA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, In Its
Municipal Capacity; DONNY R WHITAKER, In His Official and
Individual Capacity; RANDY BROWN, MR., In His Official and
Individual Capacity; WESLEY SCOTT, In His Official and Individual
Capacity; STEPHEN YARBROUGH, DVM, In His Official and Individual
Capacities; JAMES SINDON, In His Official and Individual
Capacities; SHANNA JO STRONG, In Her Official and Individual
Capacities; CARLOS GARCIA, In His Official and Individual
Capacities; CARL BURRS, In His Official and Individual
Capacities; J. R. GULLEY, JR., In His Official and Individual
Capacities; JERRY REYENA, In His Official and Individual
Capacities; JOHN WALDRUM, In His Official and Individual
Capacities; CLARK SAKLER, In His Official and Individual
Capacities; PHILLIP WILLIAMS, In His Official and Individual
Capacities; KEYSTONE FEED YARD, In Its Corporate Capacity; MARVIN
E. RHODE, SR., In His Official and Individual Capacities; JAMES
W. SMITH, In His Official and Individual Capacities; ROBERT
MCGOWEN, In His Corporate and Individual Capacity; MCGOWEN LAW
OFFICES, INC., In Its Corporate Capacity; ROBERT L. BARROWS, In
His Corporate and Individual Capacities; LELAUREN & ADAMS, PC, In
Its Corporate Capacity; JAMES BIAS, In His Corporate and
Individual Capacities; HUMANE SOCIETY OF BEXAR COUNTY -SPCA, In
Its Corporate Capacity; FOX CHANNEL 29, In Its Corporate
Capacity; SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS, In Its Corporate Capacity;
CASTROVILLE-LA COSTE NEW BULLETIN, In Its Corporate Capacity;
MEDINA VALLEY TIMES, In Its Corporate Capacity; KATHLEEN BACHUS,
In her Corporate and Individual Capacities; THOMAS CARLUCCI, In
His Corporate and Individual Capacities; LISA SANDBERG, In Her
Corporate and Individual Capacities; MARC ROBERTSON, In His
Corporate and Individual Capacities; MANUEL AZOCAR, III, In His
Corporate and Individual Capacities; EDWARD A. ORNELAS, In His
Corporate and Individual Capacities; JERRY LARA, In His Corporate
and Individual Capacities; CASTROVILLE STATE BANK, In His
Corporate Capacity; JAMES TONDRE, In His Corporate and Individual
Capacities; FRANK MOFFETT, DVM, In His Corporate and Individual
Capacities; ROY TREVINO, In His Corporate and Individual
No. 00-50662
-2-
Capacities; JAY BARNUM, In His Corporate and Individual
Capacities; MARJORIE KRAUSE, In Her Official and Individual
Capacities; BEA BELOHLAVEK, In Her Official and Individual
Capacities; DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC., LP, In its Corporate
Capacity; WILLIAM BLAGG, U.S. Attorney, In His Official Federal
and Individual Capacities; MIKE BRADFORD, In His Official Federal
and Individual Capacities; ANDREA PARKER, In Her Official Federal
and Individual Capacities; ORLANDO L. GARCIA, Judge, In His
Official and Individual Capacities; JOHN W. PRIMOMO, U.S.
Magistrate Judge, In His Official and Individual Capacity; PAM
MCGRAW, In Her Corporate and Individual Capacities; WILLIAM RHEA,
In His Corporate and Individual Capacities; RICHARD SCHELL, In
His Official and Individual Capacities; PAUL BROWN, In His
Official and Individual Capacities; DAVID FOLSOM, In His Official
and Individual Capacities; CAROLINE MALONE, In Her Official and
Individual Capacities; DAVID MALAND, In His Official and
Individual Capacities; JAMES WOODS, JR, In His Official and
Individual Capacities; WILLIAM G. PUTNICKI, Clerk, In His
Official and Individual Capacities; SANDRA SOUTHERLAND, In Her
Official and Individual Capacities; TULL; A. H. BELLO
CORPORATION, In Its Corporate Capacity; JENKENS & GILCHRIST, A
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, In Its Corporate Capacity; KURT HOWARD
KUHN, In His Official and Individual Capacities; FRIO-NUECES
CURRENT, In Its Corporate Capacity; KMOL-TV, CHANNEL 4, In its
Corporate Capacity; KENS-TV CHANNEL 5, In Its Corporate Capacity;
KSAT-TV, CHANNEL 12, In Its Corporate Capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-00-CV-640
--------------------
April 10, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles T. Hoog appeals from the dismissal of his complaint
alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, as well as
various constitutional and state law claims. We review a
*
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.
No. 00-50662
-3-
dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. See Cinel v.
Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir. 1994). We conclude that
the district court did not err.
Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs; see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); this court requires
arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Claims not
adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned
on appeal. Id. at 224-25. Hoog's brief merely repeats verbatim
nearly his entire complaint. We conclude that Hoog has failed to
adequately brief the majority of his claims, and we consider only
his RICO claim. We conclude, however, that Hoog's complaint
fails to sufficiently allege a pattern of racketeering activity
connected to the acquisition, establishment, conduct, or control
of an enterprise. See Word of Faith World Outreach Center
Church, Inc. v. Sawyer, 90 F.3d 118, 122 (5th Cir. 1996); Manax
v. McNamara, 842 F.2d 808, 811 (5th Cir. 1988).
We also conclude that Hoog's argument that the district
judge should have been disqualified because of personal bias is
without merit. See Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549, 571 (5th
Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000). Finally, the
motion of appellee KMOL-TV for leave to file an out of time brief
is GRANTED.
The instant appeal is entirely without merit and is
therefore frivolous. As such, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R.
42.2.
DISMISSED.