UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 02-20561 SUMMARY CALENDAR _________________________

JUAN E. VENTURI

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

KENNETH STARLING; C. SILVA; N. A. WEIMAN, JR.; LEE P. BROWN, Mayor

Defendants - Appellees

______________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (H-02-CV-11) ______________________________________________________________________________ January 6, 2003

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Juan E. Venturi filed a pro se complaint pursuant to

alleging that several

state actors participated in a racially motivated conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional

right to procedural and substantive due process. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss

Venturi’s complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2), (4), (5), and (6). The district court

1 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

-1- granted the defendants’ motion without reasons and Venturi now appeals.

Asserting that the district court could not have based its dismissal on Rule 12(b)(2), (4),

or (5) because the 120-day period within which he had to perfect service upon the defendants had

not expired, Venturi argues that the district court erroneously dismissed his complaint pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6). However, Venturi merely recites his conclusional factual allegations and provides

no legal analysis in support of his argument against a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Although this court construes pro se pleadings liberally, even pro se litigants must abide

by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See United States v. Wilkes,

(5th

Cir. 1994). By inadequately briefing this issue, see Yohey v. Collins,

(5th

Cir. 1993), Venturi has failed to show that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint.

AFFIRMED.

-2-