Henderson v. IberiaBank ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10773 Document: 00516697083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
March 31, 2023
No. 22-10773 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
NeKeshia-Shiondrail Henderson, Sui Juris, Agent for Debtor,
Eng Legis,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
IberiaBank; Anthony Restel, Individually and in his Official
Capacity as Chief Financial Officer of IberiaBank; Unify Financial
Federal Credit Union; Nathan Montgomery, Individually
and in his Official Capacity as Chief Financial Officer of Unify,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CV-3212
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
NeKeshia-Shiondrail Henderson, proceeding pro se, appeals the
dismissal of her amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10773 Document: 00516697083 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-10773
12(b). In her complaint, she asserted claims that various defendants had:
(1) deprived her of her rights guaranteed by the 13th Amendment,
(2) reported inaccurate and invalid information to credit reporting agencies,
in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, (3) committed fraud in the
factum, and (4) violated the Fair Credit Billing Act. She also raised a claim
titled “Default and Confession of Judgment.”
While pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), arguments must be briefed in order to
be preserved, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
Henderson does not meaningfully brief the reasons given by the district court
for dismissing the aforementioned claims, they are abandoned. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Finally, to the extent that Henderson asserts that the magistrate and
district judges acted with prejudice or displayed judicial bias warranting
disqualification, she has not identified any valid bases on which the
impartiality of the judges in this case might be questioned. See United States
v. Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824, 829-30 (5th Cir. 2007); Levitt v. Univ. of Tex. at El
Paso, 847 F.2d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 1988).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2