Filed: Mar. 27, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20631 Summary Calendar _ RETHA MAE SANDERS, Individually and as heirs to Tommie Lee Sanders, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PRAIRIE VIEW A AND M UNIVERSITY, GLENN E. BERRY, UNKNOWN INSTRUCTOR, HEMPSTEAD WALLER AMBULANCE, BRETON FIONN LIVINGSTON, (VOLUNTEER EMERGENCY AMBULANCE CORPORATION), and THE SHERIFF OF WALLER COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of T
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20631 Summary Calendar _ RETHA MAE SANDERS, Individually and as heirs to Tommie Lee Sanders, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PRAIRIE VIEW A AND M UNIVERSITY, GLENN E. BERRY, UNKNOWN INSTRUCTOR, HEMPSTEAD WALLER AMBULANCE, BRETON FIONN LIVINGSTON, (VOLUNTEER EMERGENCY AMBULANCE CORPORATION), and THE SHERIFF OF WALLER COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Te..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-20631
Summary Calendar
_____________________
RETHA MAE SANDERS, Individually
and as heirs to Tommie Lee Sanders,
deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PRAIRIE VIEW A AND M UNIVERSITY,
GLENN E. BERRY, UNKNOWN INSTRUCTOR,
HEMPSTEAD WALLER AMBULANCE, BRETON
FIONN LIVINGSTON, (VOLUNTEER
EMERGENCY AMBULANCE CORPORATION), and
THE SHERIFF OF WALLER COUNTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-93-2635)
_______________________________________________________
April 4, 1996
Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court entered a final judgment dismissing
Sanders’ complaint on several grounds. Sanders appeals only the
district court’s dismissal of the last and final defendant, the
“Waller EMS.” Sanders sought a default judgment against “Waller
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
EMS” in the amount of $500,000 after it failed to answer his
complaint. The district court refused to enter the default
judgment because there was no record of effective service of
process on “Waller EMS.” Sanders avers service was proper when
he served the Texas Secretary of State. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.
Ann. art. 1396-2.07(B) (service of process on non-profit
corporation may be had upon Secretary of State when registered
agent cannot with reasonable diligence be found). The district
court dismissed the case noting that “there is no record of
effective service of process upon ‘Waller EMS,’ ‘Hempstead/Waller
EMS,’ or ‘Waller County EMS,’ upon which a default judgment could
be based.” However, because the “Waller EMS” was no longer a
party to this suit at the time of the district court’s ruling we
need not address whether service was proper.
In Sanders’ Fourth Amended Original Complaint, he complains
that the Waller County Sheriff’s Office was negligent in
utilizing the “Waller-Hempstead EMS” when other “alternative
emergency ambulatory services [were] available at the time.”
Sanders asserts that the Waller County Sheriff’s Office was
negligent in promoting the use of a sub-standard ambulance
service, failing to meet the statutory requirements of a basic
life support vehicle, failing to have minimally proficient
individuals operate the ambulance, and failing to call life-
flight. While previous complaints filed by Sanders listed the
“Waller EMS,” the “Waller-Hempstead EMS,” or the “Hempstead EMS”
as parties and asserted negligence claims against them, the
2
Fourth Amended Complaint asserts a cause of action against only
the Waller County Sheriff’s Office for their control over the
“Waller EMS.” “An amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint and renders it of no legal affect unless the amended
complaint specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by
reference the earlier pleading.” King v. Dogan,
31 F.3d 344, 346
(5th Cir. 1994). The “Waller EMS” is not a party to the suit
before us. Sanders’ appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED
3