United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-30595

Summary Calendar

James Thompson, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Kenneth Hedrick, Individually and as Concordia Parish Sheriff; 

Deputy Sheriff Brown, Individually and as Concordia Parish Deputy 

Sheriff; Deputy Sheriff Brock, Individually and as Concordia Parish 

Deputy Sheriff; Deborah Cowan, Individually and as Concordia Parish 

Deputy Sheriff, incorrectly named as Deborah Towan, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:17-CV-982

Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 3, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30595 Document: 00515764877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 19-30595

2

James Thompson challenges the district court’s Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his claims filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against Concordia Parish Sheriff Hedrick and Deputy Sheriffs Brown, Brock, 

and Cowan. (He does not contest dismissal without prejudice of his

supplemental state-law claims.) Thompson’s claims arose from a heart 

attack suffered while an inmate at the Concordia Parish, Louisiana, Work 

Release Facility. His challenge fails.

Thompson claims defendants are liable in their official and individual 

capacities for violating their duty under the Eighth Amendment to provide 

him medical care throughout his 90-day sentence. He asserts he was released 

from detention shortly after his hospitalization and stent surgery for his heart 

attack—but before expiration of his sentence—on account of a cost-saving 

policy of providing “cheap” medical care to inmates. Thompson maintains

the court erred: in dismissing his claims pursuant to § 1983 against Sheriff 

Hedrick for the implementation of an unconstitutional policy and for failure 

to train; and in concluding Deputy Sheriffs Brown and Brock were entitled 

to qualified immunity.

Claims may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) if plaintiff fails to allege 

facts that, if accepted as true, would entitle him to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo, “accepting all wellpleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to . . .

plaintiff[]”. Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation 

omitted). In that regard, dismissal based on qualified immunity is reviewed 

de novo. Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 2013).

To state a claim pursuant to § 1983, plaintiff must “(1) allege a 

violation of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 

and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person 

Case: 19-30595 Document: 00515764877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 19-30595

3

acting under color of state law”. Leffall v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 

525 (5th Cir. 1994). 

As an inmate, Thompson had a clearly established Eighth 

Amendment right not to be denied, by deliberate indifference, attention to 

his serious medical needs. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345–46 (5th 

Cir. 2006). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if “the 

official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Thompson does not address the court’s concluding he failed to state 

a claim pursuant to § 1983 against Sheriff Hedrick, in his official capacity as 

a municipal policymaker, because Thompson: failed to allege he was denied 

medical care on account of his early release or required any follow-up care 

after his hospital discharge; had no constitutional right to free medical care;

and, upon his discharge, was free to pursue such care if necessary. 

Thompson’s failure to assign error to the court’s reasons for dismissal 

renders his claim inadequately briefed and, thus, waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 

28(a)(8)(A); United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010) (“a 

failure to brief . . . constitutes waiver”). Nevertheless, Thompson’s original 

and supplemental and amending complaints reveal he did not plead facts 

showing the complained-of policy had been applied in a widespread fashion 

or that it caused him to be denied medical care in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. See Peña v. City of Rio Grande, 879 F.3d 613, 622 (5th Cir. 2018) 

(“[P]lausibly to plead a practice so persistent and widespread as to practically 

have the force of law, . . . plaintiff must do more than describe the incident 

that gave rise to his injury”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Thompson similarly does not address the court’s dismissing his 

failure-to-train claim against Sheriff Hedrick, in his individual capacity, 

because Thompson’s complaint failed to allege with specificity how the 

Case: 19-30595 Document: 00515764877 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 19-30595

4

training program was defective. A failure-to-train claim pursuant to § 1983 

requires: a failure to train or supervise the officers involved; a causal 

connection between the alleged failure to supervise or train and the claimed 

violation of plaintiff’s rights; and the failure to train or supervise constituted 

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at 623. 

Thompson simply states the premature release of inmates to conserve 

medical costs “also shows a lack of training”. His contention is abandoned 

because it “does not extend beyond [a] conclusory assertion”. See GarridoMorato v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 319, 321 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007).

Regarding Thompson’s qualified-immunity challenge, he must allege 

a constitutional violation that was “clearly established so that the 

government official would have known [he] was violating the law”. Romero 

v. Brown, 937 F.3d 514, 519 (5th Cir. 2019). Thompson contends qualified 

immunity should not apply to Deputy Sheriffs Brown, Brock, and Cowan

because: Thompson was illegally released from his sentence; and Deputy 

Sheriff Cowan failed to obtain the correct blood pressure medication or

ensure Thompson was seen by a physician after complaints of a loss of breath, 

numbness, and headache. 

The facts pleaded regarding Deputy Sheriffs Brown and Brock do not 

state an Eighth Amendment violation—they do not allege a wanton disregard 

for any serious medical need. See Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 239 

F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (“Deliberate indifference is an extremely high 

standard to meet.”). By failing to sufficiently allege a constitutional 

deprivation, Thompson does not overcome the assertion of qualified 

immunity.

Additionally, Thompson fails to mention in his opening brief that 

Deputy Sheriff Cowan was dismissed from the action pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) on account of Thompson’s failure to effect 

Case: 19-30595 Document: 00515764877 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 19-30595

5

proper service. Instead, for the first time in his reply brief, he contends the 

court abused its discretion by dismissing Deputy Sheriff Cowan. 

Thompson’s failure to raise the issue of Deputy Sheriff Cowan’s dismissal in 

his opening brief renders it waived. SeeCenturyTel of Chatham, LLC v. Sprint 

Commc’ns Co., L.P., 861 F.3d 566, 573 (5th Cir. 2017) (applying the general 

rule that issues raised for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered 

on appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-30595 Document: 00515764877 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/03/2021