Case Name: The Estate of Trena HOOKER-MURRAY; Sjermon Hooker, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DALLAS COUNTY; Dallas County Sheriffs Department; Lupe Valdez, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-07
Citations: 332 F. App'x 991
Docket Number: No. 09-10053
Parties: The Estate of Trena HOOKER-MURRAY; Sjermon Hooker, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DALLAS COUNTY; Dallas County Sheriffs Department; Lupe Valdez, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 991–991

Head Matter:
The Estate of Trena HOOKER-MURRAY; Sjermon Hooker, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DALLAS COUNTY; Dallas County Sheriffs Department; Lupe Valdez, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-10053
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 7, 2009.
Thomas L. Cox, Jr., Sibley Gleitz & Cox, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Peter L. Harlan, District Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In May 2007, Plaintiffs-Appellants sued Dallas County, its Sheriffs Department, and its Sheriff following the death of decedent Trena Hooker-Murray in Parkland Hospital where she had been an inpatient from May 23, 2005 until her death on June 5, her hospital stay of approximately two weeks having followed an incarceration of five or six days in the Dallas County Jail. Plaintiffs-Appellants asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Approximately a year and a half after suit was filed, the district court granted summary judgment that Plaintiffs-Appellants take nothing, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Plaintiffs-Appellants contend that they presented genuine issues of material fact sufficient to preclude a determination at the summary judgment stage that none of the defendants nor any of their agents were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of the decedent while she was in jail. Our review of the record on appeal and the applicable law as presented in the briefs of the parties and the Order of the district court convince us that summary judgment dismissing the claims of Plaintiffs-Appellants was providently granted for the extensive reasons cogently presented by the district court in its Order of December 19, 2008. Accordingly, the court's Final Judgment of that date is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
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.