United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-30793

Summary Calendar

Delmon Marzett, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:18-CV-7473

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Delmon Marzett filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Sheriff 

Marlin N. Gusman and unnamed deputies alleging constitutional violations 

while he was a pretrial detainee at the Orleans Justice Center. Specifically, 

he raised claims of deliberate indifference regarding acts that occurred when 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30793 Document: 00515776889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 19-30793

2

he was transported to the courthouse for a detention hearing. He also raised 

claims relating to the alleged lack of medical care following his injury that 

occurred during the transportation.

The magistrate judge (MJ) found that because the unnamed deputies

were not properly named as defendants, those claims were subject to 

dismissal. Regarding the claims against Sheriff Gusman, the MJ found that 

Marzett failed to identify any personal involvement by Sheriff Gusman and 

that § 1983 relief did not allow for supervisory liability. To the extent Marzett 

alleged a negligent failure to train on the part of Sheriff Gusman regarding 

the incident surrounding his transportation to the courthouse, the MJ stated 

that there was no allegation that Sheriff Gusman had any type of knowledge 

of a pattern of similar incidents. Further, the MJ determined that there was 

no allegation or evidence that the alleged constitutional violation was the 

highly predictable consequence of a failure to train. To the extent Marzett 

raised claims of inadequate medical care against Sheriff Gusman, the MJ 

determined that Sheriff Gusman was not the proper defendant. Therefore, 

the MJ granted summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Gusman and dismissed 

all of Marzett’s claims with prejudice. 

We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment ruling. 

Hyatt v. Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is 

appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see Washburn v. Harvey, 504 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 

2007). 

In his brief, Marzett argues in conclusory fashion that he raised facts 

establishing a genuine dispute as to a material fact and that Sheriff Gusman 

was liable for failing to train employees. He fails to identify these facts or 

present any meaningful argument regarding the MJ’s reasons for dismissing 

Case: 19-30793 Document: 00515776889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 19-30793

3

his claims. Because Marzett completely fails to brief the MJ’s reasons for 

dismissing claims, any challenge to the dismissal of those claims is 

abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 

748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. Marzett’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Case: 19-30793 Document: 00515776889 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2021