Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-31243/USCOURTS-ca5-18-31243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yun Xin Lin
Appellant
United States Bureau of Prisons
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31243

Summary Calendar

YUN XIN LIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:16-CV-1293

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yun Xin Lin, federal prisoner # 78471-053, appeals the dismissal of his 

complaint filed under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) alleging claims of 

medical malpractice while housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in 

Oakdale, Louisiana (FCI-Oakdale). In his complaint, Lin also alleged that he 

was denied medical records under the Freedom of Information Act and 

educational resources. The district court granted the Government’s motions to 

* 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

June 3, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-31243 Document: 00515439714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2020
No. 18-31243

2

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and summary judgment. See

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 56. Lin timely appealed. See FED. R.

APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The Government has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

Lin’s entire brief is devoted to challenging the denial of his motion for 

appointment of counsel, his request to be transferred back to FCI-Oakdale, and 

the denial of another inmate’s motion to intervene. As the Government 

correctly notes, a magistrate judge (MJ) denied Lin’s motion for appointment 

of counsel and the motion to intervene. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A MJ also 

denied Lin’s request to be transferred back to FCI-Oakdale, which 

incorporated his denial of access to courts claim. Lin acknowledges that he did 

not object or appeal to the district court the MJ’s denial of these motions. Thus, 

we lack jurisdiction over his challenge to these rulings. See United States v. 

Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 499-500 (5th Cir. 1980). 

Lin does not challenge the merits of the district court’s decision granting 

the Government’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing his complaint in part for 

lack of jurisdiction. He also does not challenge the merits of the district court’s 

decision granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment with 

respect to his medical malpractice claims. These issues are therefore deemed

abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); 

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and 

DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction. The Government’s motion to 

dismiss is DENIED as moot. 

Case: 18-31243 Document: 00515439714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2020