Kyide Tolbert v. James LeBlanc, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-30644 Affirmed ] Judge: HRD , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 03/08/2013 [12-30644]

Download PDF
Case: 12-30644 Document: 00512144723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-30644 Summary Calendar February 15, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk KYIDE TOLBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JAMES M. LEBLANC; TONIA RACHAL; C.A. LOWE, JR.,, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:11-CV-2034 Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kyide Tolbert, Louisiana prisoner # 306899, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. Tolbert contends that he suffered damages due to a miscalculation of his sentence that failed to give him two years of credit for an expired sentence for armed robbery. The error was corrected before Tolbert filed this action. Tolbert fails to address and thus abandons any challenge to the district court’s reasons for dismissal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-30644 Document: 00512144723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 No. 12-30644 1993) (issues not briefed are abandoned). And we need not consider Tolbert’s double claims of jeopardy and the denial of procedural due process because he raises them for the first time on appeal. See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000); Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, while Tolbert argues to excess about the entirely uncontested fact that his sentence was temporarily miscalculated, he fails to allege any fact that would establish that the error caused him any injury or deprivation of a protected liberty interest. See Murray v. Earle, 405 F. 3d 278, 290 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting that § 1983 requires a showing of proximate causation); Baldwin v. Daniels, 250 F.3d 943, 946 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting that a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s action resulted in a deprivation of a protected interest). Tolbert simply assumes that the error itself entitles him to damages. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?