Reeder v. City of Paris ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 8, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41271
Summary Calendar
RUSTY REEDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE PARIS NEWS; JEFF JONES, Corporal, Police Officer, City of
Paris; UP WHITE, Manager, Social Security Administration; UP
SUPERVILLE, Judge, Lamar County Court; CITY OF PARIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(3:01-CV-33)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rusty Reeder appeals the dismissal of his pro se, in forma
pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. (Reeder’s motion to supplement
the record is DENIED.)
Reeder first contends the Paris News violated his freedom of
speech by not publishing an article about him as he had requested.
By not addressing the dismissal of the Paris News because it was
not a state actor, Reeder has waived any challenge to this ruling.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Reeder next asserts that Corporal Jones told him he would be
arrested if he continued to stay in a park while displaying a sign
near a wedding, prompting Reeder to leave the park. The disrict
court ruling that Reeder did not state a claim against Corporal
Jones is not plain error. See Steadman v. Texas Rangers, 179 F.3d
360, 366 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1115 (2000);
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir.
1996)(en banc).
Reeder contends the City of Paris “set [him] up to look like
a criminal or [a] mentally ill [person]” in order to discriminate
against him because of his religious beliefs. Because Reeder did
not object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that
the City’s FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motion be granted, we review only
for plain error. See id. Reeder has not shown plain error,
because Reeder’s conclusional allegations that the City
discriminated against him based on his religion were insufficient
to save the complaint from the motion to dismiss. See
Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th
Cir. 1993).
Reeder maintains Judge Superville did not give him a jury
trial, did not order the Salvation Army to let him stay there,
barred him from going to the public library, denied him due
process, and violated his Eighth Amendment rights by not releasing
2
him from the county jail. By failing to address the dismissal
based on immunity, Reeder has waived any challenge to this ruling.
See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.
Finally, Reeder asserts that the State of Texas violated his
Fourteenth Amendment rights because divorce violates church law.
The State was not named as a defendant, and Reeder’s claims against
it were not the subject of a ruling by the district court.
Accordingly, we do not consider this contention. See Vogel v.
Veneman, 276 F.3d 729, 734 (5th Cir. 2002). For the same reasons,
we do not consider Reeder’s contention concerning Judge Lovett.
See id.AFFIRMED
3