Thompson v. Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division , 291 F. App'x 581 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    August 25, 2008
    No. 07-20253
    Summary Calendar             Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    DALE THOMPSON
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE -
    INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; DR OWEN MURRAY, Director of University of
    Texas Medical Branch Managed Health Care; DR SONNY WELLS, Director of
    Dentistry - University of Texas Medical Branch; ELLIS I UNIT FACILITY
    PRACTICE MANAGER; DR ALBERT WELLS
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:06-CV-493
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Dale Thompson, Texas prisoner # 1127640, appeals the district court’s
    grant of summary judgment to defendants Dr. Owen Murray and Dr. Albert
    Wells and dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action. Thompson argues that the
    district court erred by granting summary judgment to Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells
    on the ground that they did not have sufficient personal involvement in the
    *
    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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
    No. 07-20253
    alleged constitutional violation because Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells were
    responsible for the development and implementation of the policy that prevented
    Thompson from receiving new dentures. Thompson asserts that the district
    court abused its discretion by not granting his motions for a default judgment
    against the Ellis I Unit facility practice manager, Shanta Crawford.           He
    additionally makes vague challenges to the district court’s determination that
    Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells were entitled to qualified immunity because
    Thompson had not shown the existence of a genuine issue of material fact
    regarding his claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
    needs.
    The district court dismissed Thompson’s claims against Doug Dretke, then
    the director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional
    Institutions Division, on the basis of Dretke’s lack of personal involvement, but
    did not grant summary judgment to Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells on that basis.
    Accordingly, Thompson has not shown that the district court erred by granting
    summary judgment to Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells on the basis of their lack of
    personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation.
    Crawford was purportedly served via certified mail, but the return receipt
    was not signed by her. Accordingly, Crawford was not properly served. See TEX.
    R. CIV. P. 107; Ramirez v. Consol. HGM Corp., 
    124 S.W.3d 914
    , 916 (Tex. App.
    2004); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e). As Crawford was not properly served, the district
    court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thompson’s motions for a default
    judgment against Crawford. See Rogers v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co.,
    
    167 F.3d 933
    , 940 (5th Cir. 1999). Thompson’s assertion that the district court
    did not rule on his motions for a default judgment is refuted by the record.
    Thompson has not raised a cognizable challenge to the district court’s
    determination that Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells were entitled to qualified
    immunity. Thompson seeks to incorporate by reference unspecified arguments
    he raised in the district court by asserting that the district court ignored his
    2
    No. 07-20253
    arguments; this is insufficient to preserve error, and Thompson has abandoned
    those arguments. See Perillo v. Johnson, 
    79 F.3d 441
    , 443 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996).
    The sparse substantive arguments Thompson does raise in this court do not
    address the reasoning of the district court in granting summary judgment. As
    Thompson has not identified any error in the district court’s reasoning, his
    arguments on this issue are insufficiently briefed and deemed abandoned. See
    Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir.
    1987).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-20253

Citation Numbers: 291 F. App'x 581

Judges: Reavley, Wiener, Prado

Filed Date: 8/25/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024