eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2022-05

Watts v. Pickett ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-60203     Document: 00516328013         Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/20/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 20, 2022
No. 20-60203                          Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                             Clerk
Carl Watts,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Richard Pickett, Officer,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:17-CV-38
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carl Watts, Mississippi prisoner # 77138, has appealed the district
court’s partial summary judgment dismissal and its adverse judgment
following a jury trial of his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     civil rights complaint. If his
appellate brief is liberally construed, Watts renews his claim that Warden
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60203       Document: 00516328013           Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/20/2022
No. 20-60203
Bradley, Deputy Warden Walker, and Unit Manager Walker were
deliberately indifferent to his safety by returning him to the same housing
unit where he was assaulted and where some of his assailants were still
housed. He also renews his claim that Officer Pickett was deliberately
indifferent to his safety and failed to protect him from assault by fellow
inmates.
Watts has abandoned by failing to brief any challenge to the district
court’s initial partial dismissal for failure to state a claim of his claims against
the other defendants named in his complaint. See Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, although Watts renews his claims
against Warden Bradley, Deputy Warden Walker, and Unit Manager Walker,
he does not brief any argument challenging the district court’s reasons for
granting summary judgment in their favor and ordering that his claims be
dismissed. He has therefore abandoned any challenge to the reasons for the
district court’s dismissal. See id.; see also Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy
Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
The conclusional renewal of the deliberate indifference claim against
Officer Pickett is construed as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
to support the jury’s verdict in Officer Pickett’s favor. As the appellant,
Watts is responsible for supporting his appellate issues with pertinent
transcripts of proceedings in the district court, and he has failed to do so. See
Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1)(A), (2); Richardson v. Henry,
    902 F.2d 414
    , 415-
16 (5th Cir. 1990). His unsupported appellate issues are subject to dismissal.
See Richardson,
    902 F.2d at 416
    .
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED IN
PART, and the appeal is DISMISSED IN PART.
2