Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30903/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30903-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30903

Summary Calendar

EDWARD SMITH

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, of the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana; ELIZABETH HAECKER RYAN, Attorney-atLaw of the firm Lemle & Kelleher; WACKENHUT CORP; LEMLE &

KELLEHER LLP

Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Louisiana

No. 3:09-CV-478

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this appeal, Edward Smith challenges the district court’s dismissal of

his suit in which he claimed that defendants fraudulently obtained a judgment

against him.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 21, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-30903 Document: 00511009727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2010
No. 09-30903

2

This case arises out of an earlier employment discrimination suit Smith

filed against his employer Wackenhut Corporation in the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. After discovery commenced,

Magistrate Judge Stephen Riedlinger recommended the dismissal of Smith’s

case when he repeatedly failed to meet discovery deadlines. The magistrate’s

recommendation was subsequently approved and the district court dismissed

the suit on August 19, 2008. That judgment was not appealed.

Smith then filed this suit on July 23, 2009 against Appellees the United

States, Magistrate Judge Riedlinger, his former employer and its counsel,

claiming that they fraudulently colluded to dismiss his suit. On August 3, 2009,

a magistrate judge filed a report recommending that this suit be dismissed

against all parties as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The district judge

accepted the magistrate’s recommendations and entered judgment dismissing

this suit with prejudice. Smith now appeals.

For the reasons thoroughly addressed in the magistrate judge’s report,

both the United States and Magistrate Judge Stephen Riedlinger are immune

from suit. Additionally, Smith’s brief to this court fails to address any issues

regarding his former employer and its counsel. Therefore, Smith’s arguments

against Wackenhut, Ryan, and Lemle Kelleher are waived and considered

abandoned. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 (5th

Cir. 2004).

Therefore, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED

 Case: 09-30903 Document: 00511009727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2010