Court Opinion

ID: 9839402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 00:00:45.703795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.309277
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30042        Document: 00516892513             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 23-30042                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                         September 12, 2023
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Nafeesa H. Naylor,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Walmart, Incorporated,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 3:21-CV-3292
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Nafeesa Naylor (“Naylor”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of
   her complaint alleging she was wrongfully detained and evicted from a
   Walmart store. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
         Naylor filed suit against Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”) in state court,
   claiming that the manager of the Walmart in Rayville, Louisiana, caused her
   physical and emotional injury when denying her the right to be in the store.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30042      Document: 00516892513          Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/12/2023

                                    No. 23-30042

   Following Walmart’s removal of this suit to federal court, Walmart
   propounded discovery. Naylor’s initial disclosures were barebone and not in
   compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.             After unsuccessfully seeking
   supplemental answers from Naylor’s counsel, Walmart filed a motion to
   compel. The magistrate judge granted Walmart’s motion and ordered
   Naylor to provide Walmart with “complete Rule 26(a) initial disclosures and
   to respond fully and completely to [Walmart’s] interrogatories and requests
   for production.” Naylor did not comply with the order.
          Months later, Walmart filed a motion to continue trial because it had
   not received Naylor’s supplemental discovery responses. The district court
   denied the motion and ordered that the parties show cause for why the case
   should not be dismissed due to Naylor’s failure to comply with the discovery
   order. Walmart timely complied with the district court’s order; Naylor again
   did not comply. The district court then dismissed the case with prejudice.
   Following dismissal, Naylor a motion for reconsideration.               Naylor
   subsequently filed a motion to vacate judgment and recuse the district judge.
   The district court granted the motion for recusal and the case was reassigned.
          After the case was reassigned to a different district judge, the district
   court set a hearing on Naylor’s motion for reconsideration and motion to
   vacate judgment. Naylor failed to appear at the hearing. The district court,
   therefore, entered judgment dismissing the case. Naylor filed this appeal.
          On appeal, Naylor challenges the district court’s dismissal of her case.
   Although Naylor asserts extensive facts related to her grievances, she fails to
   address any of the procedural defaults that served as the basis for the district
   court’s judgment. In short, she fails to explain or provide any citations to
   legal authority or record excerpts to demonstrate that the district court erred
   in dismissing her case for failure to prosecute her claims. Fed. R. App. P.
   28(a)(8); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Naylor
   has failed adequately to brief issues related to the dismissal of the complaint,

                                          2
Case: 23-30042       Document: 00516892513           Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/12/2023

                                      No. 23-30042

   she has failed to show any cognizable basis for relief. See Roy v. City of Monroe,
   950 F.3d 245, 251 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway
   Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004)). Having appealed the judgment
   of the district court, but having failed to raise any relevant error by the district
   court, the judgment dismissing the case is AFFIRMED.

                                            3