Case ID: f-appx_544/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lowell MERRITT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Suzanne H. WOOTEN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-40752
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 15, 2013.
    Lowell Merritt, Wylie, TX, pro se.
    David Alan Harris, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lowell Merritt appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). Merritt argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. He posits that former Judge Wooten had no judicial immunity from § 1983 liability because the court over which she presided lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the state court proceedings and that she violated his constitutional rights.

Merritt fails to brief the district court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and he has therefore abandoned on appeal any challenge to that ground for dismissal. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). Moreover, we perceive no error in the district court’s conclusion that this case is frivolous because Judge Wooten had subject matter jurisdiction in the state court proceedings and was entitled to absolute immunity for her actions taken in her judicial capacity. See, e.g., Adams v. McIlhany, 764 F.2d 294, 297 (5th Cir.1985).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.