Naylor v. Walmart, Inc. ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30042 Document: 00516892513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-30042 FILED
Summary Calendar September 12, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Nafeesa H. Naylor,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Walmart, Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:21-CV-3292
______________________________
Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Nafeesa Naylor (“Naylor”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of
her complaint alleging she was wrongfully detained and evicted from a
Walmart store. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
Naylor filed suit against Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”) in state court,
claiming that the manager of the Walmart in Rayville, Louisiana, caused her
physical and emotional injury when denying her the right to be in the store.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30042 Document: 00516892513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2023
No. 23-30042
Following Walmart’s removal of this suit to federal court, Walmart
propounded discovery. Naylor’s initial disclosures were barebone and not in
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. After unsuccessfully seeking
supplemental answers from Naylor’s counsel, Walmart filed a motion to
compel. The magistrate judge granted Walmart’s motion and ordered
Naylor to provide Walmart with “complete Rule 26(a) initial disclosures and
to respond fully and completely to [Walmart’s] interrogatories and requests
for production.” Naylor did not comply with the order.
Months later, Walmart filed a motion to continue trial because it had
not received Naylor’s supplemental discovery responses. The district court
denied the motion and ordered that the parties show cause for why the case
should not be dismissed due to Naylor’s failure to comply with the discovery
order. Walmart timely complied with the district court’s order; Naylor again
did not comply. The district court then dismissed the case with prejudice.
Following dismissal, Naylor a motion for reconsideration. Naylor
subsequently filed a motion to vacate judgment and recuse the district judge.
The district court granted the motion for recusal and the case was reassigned.
After the case was reassigned to a different district judge, the district
court set a hearing on Naylor’s motion for reconsideration and motion to
vacate judgment. Naylor failed to appear at the hearing. The district court,
therefore, entered judgment dismissing the case. Naylor filed this appeal.
On appeal, Naylor challenges the district court’s dismissal of her case.
Although Naylor asserts extensive facts related to her grievances, she fails to
address any of the procedural defaults that served as the basis for the district
court’s judgment. In short, she fails to explain or provide any citations to
legal authority or record excerpts to demonstrate that the district court erred
in dismissing her case for failure to prosecute her claims. Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(8); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Naylor
has failed adequately to brief issues related to the dismissal of the complaint,
2
Case: 23-30042 Document: 00516892513 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/12/2023
No. 23-30042
she has failed to show any cognizable basis for relief. See Roy v. City of Monroe,
950 F.3d 245, 251 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway
Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004)). Having appealed the judgment
of the district court, but having failed to raise any relevant error by the district
court, the judgment dismissing the case is AFFIRMED.
3