* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-20253

Summary Calendar

DALE THOMPSON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE -

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; DR OWEN MURRAY, Director of University of

Texas Medical Branch Managed Health Care; DR SONNY WELLS, Director of

Dentistry - University of Texas Medical Branch; ELLIS I UNIT FACILITY

PRACTICE MANAGER; DR ALBERT WELLS

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-493

Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dale Thompson, Texas prisoner # 1127640, appeals the district court’s

grant of summary judgment to defendants Dr. Owen Murray and Dr. Albert

Wells and dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Thompson argues that the

district court erred by granting summary judgment to Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells

on the ground that they did not have sufficient personal involvement in the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20253

2

alleged constitutional violation because Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells were

responsible for the development and implementation of the policy that prevented

Thompson from receiving new dentures. Thompson asserts that the district

court abused its discretion by not granting his motions for a default judgment

against the Ellis I Unit facility practice manager, Shanta Crawford. He

additionally makes vague challenges to the district court’s determination that

Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells were entitled to qualified immunity because

Thompson had not shown the existence of a genuine issue of material fact

regarding his claim thatthey were deliberately indifferentto his serious medical

needs.

The district court dismissed Thompson’s claims against Doug Dretke, then

the director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional

Institutions Division, on the basis of Dretke’s lack of personal involvement, but

did not grant summary judgment to Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells on that basis.

Accordingly, Thompson has not shown that the district court erred by granting

summary judgment to Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells on the basis of their lack of

personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation.

Crawford was purportedly served via certified mail, but the return receipt

was not signed by her. Accordingly, Crawford was not properly served. See TEX.

R. CIV. P. 107; Ramirez v. Consol. HGM Corp., 124 S.W.3d 914, 916 (Tex. App.

2004); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e). As Crawford was not properly served, the district

court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thompson’s motions for a default

judgment against Crawford. See Rogers v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co.,

167 F.3d 933, 940 (5th Cir. 1999). Thompson’s assertion that the district court

did not rule on his motions for a default judgment is refuted by the record.

Thompson has not raised a cognizable challenge to the district court’s

determination that Dr. Murray and Dr. Wells were entitled to qualified

immunity. Thompson seeks to incorporate by reference unspecified arguments

he raised in the district court by asserting that the district court ignored his
No. 07-20253

3

arguments; this is insufficient to preserve error, and Thompson has abandoned

those arguments. See Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441, 443 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996).

The sparse substantive arguments Thompson does raise in this court do not

address the reasoning of the district court in granting summary judgment. As

Thompson has not identified any error in the district court’s reasoning, his

arguments on this issue are insufficiently briefed and deemed abandoned. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987).

AFFIRMED.