
    Jeremy James HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Matt BINGHAM; Peter Keim, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 17-40144 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed December 19, 2017
    Jeremy James Hendricks, Pro Se
    Thomas Phillip Brandt, Stephen Douglas Henninger, John David Husted, Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jeremy James Hendricks, Texas prisoner # 01491333 and proceeding pro se, challenges the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action (claiming a due-process violation) as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and, in the alternative, by the doctrines of qualified and absolute immunity. Hendricks does not present any bases challenging the court’s ruling his due-process claim is barred under Heck. His failure to point to any error in the court’s reasoning puts him in the same position as if he had not appealed the judgment. E.g., Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). This court liberally construes briefs filed by pro se litigants, but even pro se parties must reasonably comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8). E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

In the alternative, in his reply brief, in addressing appellees’ contentions regarding qualified and absolute immunity, Hendricks fails to brief any bases challenging the court’s alternative conclusion that the district attorney and assistant district attorney, involved in Hendricks’ prosecution for sexual assault of a child, were entitled to such' immunity. Accordingly, he has abandoned this issue. Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     