Opinion
No. 09-20709 Summary Calendar.
July 22, 2010.
James Cavazos, Houston, TX, pro se.
William Lance Lewis, Esq., Marcie Lynn Schout, Quilling, Selander, Cummiskey Lownds, P.C., Dallas, TX, for JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association.
Steven A. Leyh, John Peyton Barnes, Leyh Payne, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Shelly Douglass, Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Turner Engel, Addison, TX, for Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner Engel LLP.
William Lance Lewis, Esq., Marcie Lynn Schout, for Merscorp Inc., EMC Mortgage Corp., Mers.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:09-CV-648.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
James Cavazos appeals the judgment dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, his mortgage fraud suit against the defendants. Cavazos's initial brief failed to attempt to demonstrate error in the district court's determination that he was without standing to sue. Cavazos's failure to identify any error in the district court's analysis on this issue constitutes a failure to appeal that ruling. see Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). As are other litigants, a pro se party is required to brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Consequently, we deem Cavazos's appeal to have been abandoned. His effort to address standing in his reply brief comes too late, as we will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. United States v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301, 304 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2005) ("Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, even by pro se litigants . . . are waived.") Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed; the pending motion to strike Cavazos's record excerpts is denied as moot.
Cavazos contended only that a "Notice of International Commercial Claim in Admiralty Administrative Remedy" he sent to the defendants around the time this case was removed constitutes proof of his claimed ownership in the property due to "estoppel by acquiescence." To the extent that this constitutes a challenge to the district court's standing determination, it is frivolous.
In any event, Cavazos's reply brief is wholly lacking in any legal citation, relying instead on quoting Latin maxims which in no way address the specific reasoning of the district court.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO STRIKE RECORD EXCERPTS DENIED AS MOOT.