Case Name: Brenda MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. James E. YELDELL; Amy Ellender; Louisiana Supreme Court; 4th Judicial District Court; Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit; Frank Moore, Sr.; Elnora Thomas; Scott Leehy, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-25
Citations: 537 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 12-30628
Parties: Brenda MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. James E. YELDELL; Amy Ellender; Louisiana Supreme Court; 4th Judicial District Court; Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit; Frank Moore, Sr.; Elnora Thomas; Scott Leehy, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 537
Pages: 412–412

Head Matter:
Brenda MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. James E. YELDELL; Amy Ellender; Louisiana Supreme Court; 4th Judicial District Court; Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit; Frank Moore, Sr.; Elnora Thomas; Scott Leehy, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 12-30628
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 25, 2013.
Brenda Moore, Carlsbad, CA, pro se.
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Brenda Moore, proceeding pro se, appeals the judgment of the district court which adopted the March 9, 2012 Report and Recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissed Moore's claims against the various defendants-appellees, as follows: Her claims against the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit and the 4th District Court for the Parish of Moorehouse were dismissed with prejudice; those against the Louisiana Supreme Court were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; those against Judge Scott Leehy in his individual capacity were dismissed with prejudice; those against Judge Scott Leehy in his official capacity were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and those against Amy Ellender, James Yeldell, Frank Moore, Sr., and Elnora Thomas were dismissed with prejudice. We have reviewed the record on appeal, Moore's appellate brief, and her record excerpts, and we conclude that the judgment of the district court should be, and is hereby,
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.