Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60717/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60717-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Hallman
Appellant
Lee County, Mississippi
Appellee

Document Text:

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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

F I L E D

March 25, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

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

 Case: 03-60717 Document: 0051923083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2004
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-totrain/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

 Case: 03-60717 Document: 0051923083 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2004
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.

 Case: 03-60717 Document: 0051923083 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/25/2004