# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 indiffe rence regarding acts that occurred when

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4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: 03/11/2021No. 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 failur e 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
al l 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

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

**F ED**  **. R. C IV**  **. 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 disp ute 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: 03/11/2021No. 19

- 30793

3 his claims. Because Marzett completely fails to bri ef 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