### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 31138 Summary Calendar

TONY CHANEY , Plaintiff

–

Appellant

v.
LOUISI ANA WORK FORCE COMMISSION; LOUISIANA ATTORNE Y GENERAL OFFICE; JAMES CALDWELL, DIRECTOR, ALSO KNOWN AS BUDDY; WAYNE ROGILLIO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRIVATE SECURITY EXAMINERS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY , Defendant s

– Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:13

- CV

- 241

Before KING , DAVIS , and ELROD, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
Pro se Appellant Tony Chaney ( hereinafter “ Chaney ” ) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims alleging violations of his civil rights by Louisiana Work Force Commission, Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, Attorney General James “Buddy” Caldwell, and Wayne Rogillio ( hereinafter

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 14, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-31138 Document: 00512629329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2014No. 13

- 31138

“ Defendants ” )

. The district court found that Defendants were immune from suit and that Chaney failed to effectuate proper service of process on
D efendants. Chaney argues that the district court erred in dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the district court. Chaney alleges the Louisiana Workforce Commission has conspired with the Louisiana Attorney General to have him categorized as a potential terrorist for the purpose of monitoring his activities. Chaney further alleges that Louisiana Attorney General and other law enforcement agencies have utilized multiple surveillance techniques in violation of his civil rights. Chaney claims that various members of law enforcement have physically threatened, intimidated, ran over, harassed, and conducted unlawful searches of Chaney and his private investigator, William Humble. He brings claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1 985, 1986, 1988, 18 U.S.C. § § 241, 242, and state tort law and seeks an award in the amount of ten million dollars

. The district court was correct in its ruling that the Eleventh Amendment
bars Chaney’s claims for monetary damage s against Defendants in th eir official capacit ies

. The Supreme Court has distinguished between personal

and official

- capacity suits. In Hafer v. Melo , 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991) , the Court made clear that a suit against a state official in his official capacity for monetary damages is treated as a suit against the state and is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment

. Chaney argues that under Monell v. Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), government officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” for purpo ses of § 1983 . However, Monell limits immunity to local and municipal entities only to the extent that “the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted or p romulgated by those whose acts may fairly represent official policy.” Id. at 690. Chaney does not allege any 2 Case: 13-31138 Document: 00512629329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2014No. 13

- 31138 such policy was adopted or promulgated by Defendants. I t is settled law that a suit against state officials i n their official capacities does not qualify as a suit against “persons” under § 1983, and Chaney’s claims must fail. See Will v. Mich. Dep’ t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)

. Because Chaney’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment , we need not reach the issue of service. 1 AFFIRM ED

.

1 Although Chaney has captioned his case as a suit against the departments in their official capacities and Wayne Rogillio in his individual and official capacity, he has failed to brief the issue against Rogi llio in his individual capacity and therefore ha s waived the issue. See United States v. Scoggins , 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010)

. 3 Case: 13-31138 Document: 00512629329 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/14/2014