* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31091

Summary Calendar

DARRYL CURRY

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RODNEY JACK STRAIN, JR, Sheriff, St. Tammany Parish; WARDEN

DUCK, St. Tammany Parish Jail; CAPTAIN LETENO, St. Tammany Parish

Jail, ZACHARY CARBO, Deputy; MICHAEL FERRELL, Deputy

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:00-CV-2462

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darryl Curry filed suit against St. Tammany Parish and several of its

employees, alleging numerous civil rights violations stemming from his arrest

on August 22, 1999. The defendants filed multiple motions for summary

judgment, and only Curry’s excessive force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 29, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-31091

2

his state law assault and battery claims survived for trial. After a trial before a

magistrate judge and jury,the jury returned a verdictin favor ofthe defendants.

The district court entered final judgment, and Curry filed this appeal.

Curry argues that the court erred in denying his motion to compel

additional discovery. Alternatively, Curry argues that the court should have

granted him a continuance because he needed additional time for discovery and

because he was unable to assist his attorney in preparing for trial. We review

discovery rulings, including the denial of a motion to compel, for abuse of

discretion. See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th

Cir.2000). We “will affirm such decisions unless they are arbitrary or clearly

unreasonable.” Id. We likewise review the grant or denial of a continuance for

abuse of discretion. Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc., 989 F.2d 1435, 1441 (5th

Cir.1993).

We find no abuse of discretion in this case. First, Curry’s motion to compel

was untimely.The magistrate judge entered a scheduling order pursuant to FED.

R. CIV. P. 16 providing that all discovery “shall be completed” by August 11,

2006. In addition, the court’s scheduling order required the parties to file all

pretrial motions no later than August 15, 2006. Curry did not file his motion to

compel until September 1, 2006, well after the deadline for completing discovery

and filing pretrial motions had passed. In addition, many of the issues on which

Curry requested additional discovery related to claims that were previously

dismissed on summary judgment. Given Curry’s unexplained delay in seeking

the court’s assistance in compelling discovery and the irrelevance of many of his

discovery requests, the court’s decision to deny Curry’s request for additional

discovery was not “arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.” See Moore, 233 F.3d at

876.

Curry also argues that he was entitled to a continuance because he was

mentally incompetent and unable to assist his counsel in preparing for trial. The
No. 06-31091

3

court evaluated the evidence that Curry submitted in support of his motion to

continue, including his medical records, and found that Curry had not

established that he was unable to assist his attorney in preparing for trial. After

carefully reviewing the same evidence, we cannot say that this conclusion was

an abuse of discretion. 

Finally, Curry’s brief alludes to an argument that the court should have

declared a mistrial after he exhibited bizarre behavior in front of the jury.

Because Curry has not adequately briefed this issue, we will not consider it. See

United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n. 3 (5th Cir. 2000) (a party waives

an issue if he fails to adequately brief it); see also FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A)

(Appellant's brief must contain his “contentions and the reasons for them, with

citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant 

relies. . . .”).

The judgment is AFFIRMED.