United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-40290

Summary Calendar

____________

Cathy Haynes, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Turner Bass & Associates; Michael Bass; Damariscotta 

Limited and Company; James E. Bass, Deceased; Christine 

Bass, Deceased; Unknown Defendants; State of Texas; 

County of Smith; City of Tyler, Texas, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:20-CV-192

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Cathy Haynes, proceeding pro se, appeals the 

order of the district court dismissing her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) filed against Defendant-

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 11, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-40290 Document: 00517030382 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024
No. 23-40290

2

Appellees the State of Texas, Smith County, and the City of Tyler, Texas 

(the “Public Defendants”). She also appeals the district court’s dismissal of 

her ADA claims against the defendants who ran the self-storage facility (the 

“Storage Company Defendants”). In her amended complaint, Haynes 

alleges that the Storage Company Defendants violated her rights, and the

Public Defendants failed to protect her rights, after the storage company 

allegedly disposed of the property she kept in a rental unit without providing 

the required notice and accommodating her disability. 

By her failure to brief, Haynes has abandoned any challenge to the 

dismissal of her ADA claims against the Public Defendants and the Storage 

Company Defendants. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 

1993). As for the arguments that Haynes has briefed on appeal, we discern 

no error in the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the City of 

Tyler and Smith County, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 

Ramirez v. Guadarrama, 3 F.4th 129, 133 (5th Cir. 2021); see also DeShaney v. 

Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989). 

We likewise discern no error in the dismissal of her claims against the 

State of Texas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Cozzo v. Tangipahoa 

Par. Council-President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273, 280 (5th Cir. 2002). The State is 

immune from all of Haynes’s claims absent waiver or abrogation, and only 

state officials, not the State, may be enjoined prospectively. See P.R. 

Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993); 

Turnage v. Britton, 29 F.4th 232, 239 (5th Cir. 2022). None of these 

limitations on the principle of sovereign immunity apply here. 

Finally, the district court acted within its wide discretion in declining 

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Haynes’s state law claims. See 

Case: 23-40290 Document: 00517030382 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2024
No. 23-40290

3

Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cnty., 826 F.3d 861, 872 (5th Cir. 2016); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c), (d). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-40290 Document: 00517030382 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/2024