Williams v. Orleans Parish Cr ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-31270
Summary Calendar
TYRONNE M. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ORLEANS PARISH CRIMINAL SHERIFF OFFICE; ET AL.,
Defendants,
ORLEANS PARISH CRIMINAL SHERIFF OFFICE; CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.,
Sheriff, Orleans Parish Prison; KENNETH DAIGLE, Deputy; STUN
TECH, INC.; DAMOND BARTLETT, Deputy,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-543-F
--------------------
June 27, 2000
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Tyronne M. Williams appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s
Office, Sheriff Charles Foti, Deputy Kenneth Daigle, and Deputy
Damond Bartlett and the district court’s grant of dismissal in
favor of Stun Tech, Inc. Williams argues that genuine issues of
material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Foti
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
and the deputies. Williams also argues that he stated a claim
against Stun Tech.
Williams does not brief the dismissal of the State of
Louisiana. While Williams mentions the issues of the adequacy of
his medical needs and the dismissal of the Orleans Parish Criminal
Sheriff’s Office, Williams does not provide any coherent arguments,
citations to the record, or citations to authorities. These issues
are inadequately briefed and deemed waived. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A).
Williams did not submit evidence that the deputies responded
with deliberate indifference to the risk of a shock by the shock
belt. See Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525-26
(5th Cir. 1999). Williams has not provided any summary judgment
evidence that Sheriff Foti employed an unconstitutional policy.
See Alton v. Texas A & M University, 168 F.3d 196, 200 (5th Cir.
1998). Accordingly, Williams failed to raise genuine issues of
material fact with regard to those claims, and summary judgment was
properly granted in favor of the defendants. See Olabisiomotosho,
185 F.3d at 525.
Williams failed to allege in both his second and proposed
third amended complaints that Stun Tech was acting under color of
state law or that it conspired with a state actor. See
Olabisiomotosho, 185 F.3d at 525; Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338,
1343 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Williams failed to state a
claim against Stun Tech, and the motion to dismiss was properly
2
granted. See Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir.
1999), petition for cert. filed, 68 U.S.L.W. 3657 (U.S. Apr. 10,
2000)(No. 99-16). In addition, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motion to amend because it would have
been futile. See Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem
Trading United States of America Co., 195 F.3d 765, 771 (5th Cir.
1999).
AFFIRMED.
3