Roberson v. Labor Finders , 71 F. App'x 365 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit August 14, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60985
Summary Calendar
STEPHANIE ROBERSON
Plaintiff - Appellant
VERSUS
LABOR FINDERS
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg
2:02-CV-130
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roberson challenges the district court’s order dismissing
her suit without prejudice.
Stephanie Roberson filed a complaint seeking recovery for
personal injuries she sustained when a forklift struck her
apparently during the course of her employment. The magistrate
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
judge to whom the case was assigned was unable to determine from
the pleadings the basis for the court’s jurisdiction or the
nature of the claim, that is whether it was a contract suit, a
tort suit or a worker’s compensation suit. The magistrate judge
directed Ms. Roberson to amend her petition to state with
specificity the legal claims presented and the facts she relied
on in support thereof. When the plaintiff did not respond, the
magistrate judge recommended that the case be dismissed for two
reasons: (1) the complaint did not demonstrate that the claim was
within the court’s jurisdiction and (2) the plaintiff failed to
amend her complaint as directed by the court.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings,
accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissed the
case without prejudice.
Unfortunately, Ms. Roberson, who filed this appeal pro se,
addressed neither ground upon which the court dismissed her suit.
Her brief is limited to a discussion of the facts surrounding her
accident.
When an appellant fails to address the merits of an opinion
or fails to identify any error, the practical effect “is the same
as if [she] had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas
County, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) Because the appellant
failed to address the grounds for the district court’s ruling, we
2
consider her claims abandoned.1
Appeal DISMISSED.
1
Roberson also filed a motion to add another party to this
suit. The motion is denied.
3