Filed: Mar. 25, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 25, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-60717 Summary Calendar MARY HALLMAN, Executrix of the Estate of Charles Clifton Walters, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:01-CV-455 - Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judg
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 25, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-60717 Summary Calendar MARY HALLMAN, Executrix of the Estate of Charles Clifton Walters, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:01-CV-455 - Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judge..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 25, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60717
Summary Calendar
MARY HALLMAN, Executrix of the
Estate of Charles Clifton Walters, deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:01-CV-455
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mary Hallman, as executrix of the estate of Charles Clifton
Walters, appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of Walters’ 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, alleging claims of wrongful arrest,
denial of Miranda rights, fraudulent indictment, wrongful
incarceration, malicious prosecution, denial of medical care,
physical abuse, and state law claims for defamation, invasion of
privacy, and negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional
distress. The allegations arose out of the arrest and indictment
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60717
-2-
of Walters for murder and his incarceration pending trial. His
state court criminal trial on the murder charges resulted in an
acquittal. Walters’ complaint alleged that the County was
directly liable and responsible for the acts of its agents
because the County failed to (1) adequately train and/or
supervise its agents and (2) enforce and/or ensure that the laws
of the United States and the State of Mississippi were being
enforced.
Hallman first avers that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of the County before discovery
was completed. Hallman did not seek a continuance of the motion
for summary judgment on the basis that additional discovery was
needed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f). Moreover, Hallman has
failed to show that additional discovery was necessary to
establish any issue of material fact which would have precluded
summary judgment. International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s,
Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1266 (5th Cir. 1991).
Hallman does not specifically argue that the district court
erred in granting summary judgment on her failure-to-
train/supervise claim. Accordingly, the claim is deemed
abandoned on appeal. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th
Cir. 1993).
Because there was no genuine issue of material fact, only
the conclusional allegations, that the County had in place any
official or non-official policy evidencing objective deliberate
No. 03-60717
-3-
indifference to the constitutional rights of criminal suspects or
pre-trial detainees, the district court did not err in granting
the County’s motion for summary judgment. See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The district court also properly refused to exercise
jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);
Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir. 1992).
However, the judgment of the district court is amended to dismiss
the state law claims without prejudice. See Hamill v. Wright,
870 F.2d 1032, 1038 (5th Cir. 1989) (modifying dismissal of state
law claim to be without prejudice, except as to filing in federal
court). The judgment is MODIFIED to be without prejudice as to
the state law claims. As so modified, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
MODIFIED IN PART AND AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
