Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-40810/USCOURTS-ca5-18-40810-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40810

Summary Calendar

JEROME RANDLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

J. SLOAN; NORRIS JACKSON; JEFFREY CATOE; B. PARKER; WILLIAM 

WHEAT; DANIEL CHOATE; PAM PACE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CV-459

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerome Randle, Texas Prisoner # 1922498, filed a civil-rights complaint 

against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His claims were for denial of 

due process, cruel and unusual punishment, deliberate indifference, denial of 

grievances, lack of access to the courts, and excessive use of force. After the 

screening stage, all claims were dismissed except those against Captain Daniel 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-40810 Document: 00515261649 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2020
No. 18-40810

2

Choate and Warden Norris Jackson for deliberate indifference and against 

Captain Choate for excessive use of force. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The State

then moved for summary judgment on the ground that Randle failed to exhaust 

his administrative remedies. The district court granted summary judgment 

on that basis. Randle appeals from both rulings. 

Randle fails to give meaningful briefing on any of his objections to the 

district court’s dismissal of his claims against Warden Jackson and Captain 

Choate for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Likewise, Randle 

does not meaningfully brief the Section 1915A dismissal of his claims for cruel 

and unusual punishment, lack of access to the courts, or denial of grievances. 

In failing to brief the issues or identify any error in the district court’s dismissal 

of the claims, Randle has abandoned the claims on appeal. See Brinkmann v. 

Dallas Cnty Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the remaining claims, 

which are denial of due process and deliberate indifference, applying the same 

standard used in reviewing a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). After 

amending his complaint, Randle fails to set forth “sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). As 

to the due process claims, Randle did not have a protected liberty interest at 

stake and therefore could not complain of a denial of due process. See Meza v. 

Livingston, 607 F.3d 392, 399 (5th Cir. 2010). Regarding his medical-care 

claim, Randle did not plead substantial harm resulting from delay in care. See 

Westfall v. Luna, 903 F.3d 534, 552 (5th Cir. 2018).

The district court’s § 1915A dismissal and summary judgment dismissal 

of the claims against defendants are AFFIRMED. 

Case: 18-40810 Document: 00515261649 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2020