LeBlanc v. Holmes ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-60167
    Summary Calendar
    SHARI LEBLANC, Individually, as Personal Representative of
    all Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and as Administratix of the
    Estate of Mary Ann Pruitt,
    Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    JEFF HOLMES, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a
    Member of the Arkansas State Police; J.D. KETCHUM, Individually
    and in His Official Capacity as a Member of the Arkansas State
    Police; JAY THOMPSON, Individually and in His Official Capacity
    as a Member of the Arkansas State Police; JAMES A. SPEER,
    Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Member of the
    Arkansas State Police; BRAD PERKINS, Individually and in His
    Official Capacity as a Member of the Arkansas State Police
    Defendants - Appellees
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:98-CV-127
    --------------------
    November 21, 2000
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Shari LeBlanc, as representative of the estate of Mary Ann
    Pruitt, appeals the district court’s grant of the Appellees’
    motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).   In
    particular, LeBlanc contends that the district court erred in
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-60167
    -2-
    finding that the Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity by
    by determining that their conduct was objectively reasonable.
    In her responsive pleading to the Appellees’ motions to
    dismiss, LeBlanc submitted various exhibits, including copies of
    responses to interrogatories, police training records, incident
    reports, and a coroner’s report.   The record indicates that the
    district court relied upon at least some of these exhibits when
    reaching its decision.   Accordingly, the de novo summary judgment
    standard or review applies to this case.   See Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 12(b); Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 
    901 F.2d 1281
    , 1283-84
    (5th Cir. 1990).
    We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the
    parties and find that the Appellees’ conduct did not violate
    Pruitt’s procedural and substantive due process rights.      County
    of Sacramento v. Lewis, 
    523 U.S. 833
    , 848-50 (1998); Wagner v.
    Bay City, Tx,__ F.3d __, 
    2000 WL 1282564
     *35 (5th Cir. Sept. 27,
    2000).   The most that could be said about the Appellees’ conduct
    (and we would not be prepared to say it) is that it may have been
    in some respect negligent; it does not rise to the level of
    deliberate indifference.   Accordingly, the district court
    correctly held that the Appellees were entitled to qualified
    immunity.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-60167

Filed Date: 11/21/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021