Case: 18-20548 Document: 00514853144 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-20548 FILED Summary Calendar February 27, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk EMMANUEL ADWALE ADEYINKA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HARRIS COUNTY JAIL; STATE OF TEXAS; ANNISE DANETTE PARKER; LARRY NGUYEN; DANIEL JOSPH, JR.; B. SANDERSON; HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER WERLINGER, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CV-2161

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Emmanuel Adwale Adeyinka, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We review that dismissal for abuse of discretion. Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013); Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278, 279-80 (5th Cir. 2010).

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Case: 18-20548 Document: 00514853144 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2019

No. 18-20548 On appeal, Adeyinka fails to address the district court’s determination that his claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations or by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). By failing to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if Adeyinka had not appealed the dismissal of his complaint.

See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because he has therefore abandoned any argument that the dismissal of his complaint was an abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See Rogers, 709 F.3d at 407; Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Furthermore, Adeyinka’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is denied because he has not shown that this case presents exceptional circumstances. See Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.