Summary
dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for failure to prosecute and finding that the plaintiff was "not personally responsible for the delay." Rather, "[t]he failure of Duperon's counsel [Wilson] to implement procedures to properly the track the deadlines in each of these cases and to take the extra care required to avoid confusion caused by the similarity of the cases amount[ed] to intentional conduct" warranting the sanction of dismissal.
Summary of this case from Melancon v. Conagra Grocery Prods. Co.Opinion
No. 07-30146 Summary Calendar.
February 14, 2008.
John Courtney Wilson, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Phyllis Esther Glazer, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, USDC No. 2:06-CV-3325.
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Jules Duperon appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging that several correctional officers at Washington Correctional Institute violated his civil rights by beating him. Specifically, he argues that the magistrate judge erred in dismissing his suit for failure to prosecute. The Government counters that we need not consider whether the dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper because Duperon has failed to challenge the dismissal on the independent ground that he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because Duperon has failed to make an argument pursuant to FED. R.CIVP. 28(a)(9)(A) challenging the dismissal of his suit for failure to state a claim, he is deemed to have abandoned the issue. See Royal Ins. Co. of Amer. v. Caliber One Indem. Co., 465 F.3d 614, 621 n. 34 (5th Cir. 2006); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.